| Institution: | 1.School of Psychology,Beijing Normal University,Beijing,China;2.Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology,Beijing Normal University,Beijing,China;3.Medical Supplies Depot,Academy of Military Medical Sciences,Beijing,China;4.Department of Psychology,University of Notre Dame,Notre Dame,USA;5.Department of Psychology,Henan University,Kaifeng,China;6.Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics,Nijmegen,The Netherlands;7.School of Social Development,Central University of Finance and Economy,Beijing,China;8.State Key Lab of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning,Beijing Normal University,Beijing,China;9.Department of Psychology and Social Behavior,University of California,Irvine,USA |
| Abstract: | One debate in mathematical cognition centers on the single-representation model versus the two-representation model. Using an improved number Stroop paradigm (i.e., systematically manipulating physical size distance), in the present study we tested the predictions of the two models for number magnitude processing. The results supported the single-representation model and, more importantly, explained how a design problem (failure to manipulate physical size distance) and an analytical problem (failure to consider the interaction between congruity and task-irrelevant numerical distance) might have contributed to the evidence used to support the two-representation model. This study, therefore, can help settle the debate between the single-representation and two-representation models. |
