title: An ERP study of the processing of common and decimal fractions: how different they are.
abstract: This study explored event-related potential (ERP) correlates of common fractions (1/5) and decimal fractions (0.2). Thirteen subjects performed a numerical magnitude matching task under two conditions. In the common fraction condition, a nonsymbolic fraction was asked to be judged whether its magnitude matched the magnitude of a common fraction; in the decimal fraction condition, a nonsymbolic fraction was asked to be matched with a decimal fraction. Behavioral results showed significant main effects of condition and numerical distance, but no significant interaction of condition and numerical distance. Electrophysiological data showed that when nonsymbolic fractions were compared to common fractions, they displayed larger N1 and P3 amplitudes than when they were compared to decimal fractions. This finding suggested that the visual identification for nonsymbolic fractions was different under the two conditions, which was not due to perceptual differences but to task demands. For symbolic fractions, the condition effect was observed in the N1 and P3 components, revealing stimulus-specific visual identification processing. The effect of numerical distance as an index of numerical magnitude representation was observed in the P2, N3 and P3 components under the two conditions. However, the topography of the distance effect was different under the two conditions, suggesting stimulus specific semantic processing of common fractions and decimal fractions.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
authors.forename: Li
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.forename: Qi
authors.initials: Q
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: Chongde
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Lin
authors.forename: Cody
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Ding
authors.forename: Xinlin
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Zhou
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D004594:Electrophysiology; D005071:Evoked Potentials / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008433:Mathematics; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2010 Jan;48(1):201-10
references.pmid: 19751750
references.citation: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004 Mar;19(1):10-27
references.pmid: 14972354
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2005 Sep;51(2):101-40
references.pmid: 16081058
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2001 Apr;11(4):350-9
references.pmid: 11278198
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2003 Dec 2;13(23):2045-50
references.pmid: 14653993
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Dec;35(6):1845-64
references.pmid: 19968440
references.citation: Biol Psychol. 2010 Jan;83(1):47-55
references.pmid: 19854237
references.citation: Neurosci Lett. 2004 Apr 22;360(1-2):65-8
references.pmid: 15082180
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 Feb;139(2):350-7
references.pmid: 22192439
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Dec;33(6):1410-9
references.pmid: 18085953
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2000 Mar;37(2):190-203
references.pmid: 10731769
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2013 Mar;142(3):299-307
references.pmid: 23419807
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Nov;64(11):2088-98
references.pmid: 21929473
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2009 Apr 8;29(14):4652-7
references.pmid: 19357289
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Apr;15(2):419-25
references.pmid: 18488662
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Nov;36(6):1389-98
references.pmid: 20804282
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Aug;62(8):1598-616
references.pmid: 19123119
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2012 Mar;217(1):25-34
references.pmid: 22159550
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Jun 23;95(13):7836-41
references.pmid: 9636237
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2009 Aug 1;47(1):403-13
references.pmid: 19328235
references.citation: Cortex. 2008 Apr;44(4):470-7
references.pmid: 18387580
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2011 Jun;62(4):273-96
references.pmid: 21569877
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2013 May;66(3):283-301
references.pmid: 23416180
references.citation: Contemp Educ Psychol. 2001 Jul;26(3):400-417
references.pmid: 11414728
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2007 Oct;118(10):2128-48
references.pmid: 17573239
references.citation: Behav Brain Funct. 2007 Jan 10;3:1
references.pmid: 17214890
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Jan;17(1):13-9
references.pmid: 23219805
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2001 May;38(3):557-77
references.pmid: 11352145
references.citation: Nature. 1967 Sep 30;215(5109):1519-20
references.pmid: 6052760
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2011;58(6):480-9
references.pmid: 21592948
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2001 Nov;14(5):1013-26
references.pmid: 11697933
references.citation: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Feb;22(2):289-300
references.pmid: 15653300
references.citation: Neuroreport. 2006 Jul 17;17(10):991-4
references.pmid: 16791090
references.citation: Psychiatry Res. 1982 Dec;7(3):299-308
references.pmid: 6962438
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1996 Winter;8(1):47-68
references.pmid: 23972235
references.citation: Neuropsychology. 2001 Jan;15(1):115-27
references.pmid: 11216882