title: Evidence for direct retrieval of relative quantity information in a quantity judgment task: decimals, integers, and the role of physical similarity.
abstract: Participants' reaction times (RTs) in numerical judgment tasks in which one must determine which of 2 numbers is greater generally follow a monotonically decreasing function of the numerical distance between the two presented numbers. Here, I present 3 experiments in which the relative influences of numerical distance and physical similarity are assessed in just such a task using integers and decimals as stimuli. The data reveal that numerical distance is the primary feature controlling participants' RTs when integers are presented. However, the physical similarity between the decade place of the standard and the probe is the primary feature controlling participants' RTs when decimals are presented. I conclude that the unique qualities of decimals do not lend themselves to share the place-coding representation of integers, thus a direct retrieval mechanism for judging the relative quantity of decimals has developed.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 South College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403-5612, USA. cohend@uncw.edu
authors.forename: Dale J
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: Cohen
mesh_terms: D004192:Discrimination, Psychological / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment / Q000502:physiology*; D008297:Male; D008433:Mathematics; D011939:Mental Recall / Q000502:physiology*; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests; D010775:Photic Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D011601:Psychophysics; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology*; D012044:Regression Analysis; D013334:Students; D013997:Time Factors
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2005;52(3):195-200
references.pmid: 16076067
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 1983;21(3):259-63
references.pmid: 6877579
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1980 Nov;8(6):612-22
references.pmid: 6163942
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2009 Aug;32(3-4):313-28; discussion 328-73
references.pmid: 19712504
references.citation: Nature. 1967 Sep 30;215(5109):1519-20
references.pmid: 6052760
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2002 Sep;131(3):424-42
references.pmid: 12214756
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995 Mar;21(2):314-26
references.pmid: 7738503
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Dec;33(6):1410-9
references.pmid: 18085953
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1990 Aug;16(3):626-41
references.pmid: 2144576
references.citation: Cogn Neuropsychol. 2003 May 1;20(3):487-506
references.pmid: 20957581
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Apr;16(2):332-6
references.pmid: 19293103
references.citation: Cognition. 1992 Aug;44(1-2):1-42
references.pmid: 1511583
references.citation: Cognition. 2001 Nov;82(1):B25-33
references.pmid: 11672709
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1974 Dec;103(6):1131-6
references.pmid: 4457588
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1989 Jun;45(6):557-66
references.pmid: 2740196
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005 Oct;31(5):1150-63
references.pmid: 16262504
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Apr;33(2):483-96
references.pmid: 17469981
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Feb;12(1):66-80
references.pmid: 15945201
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2009 Aug;32(3-4):332-3; discussion 356-73
references.pmid: 19712509