Academic Journal
View in EDS
Linked Full Text

Pairwise Go/No-Go magnitude comparison with spatially arranged Arabic digits and Turkish number words.

Bibliographic Details
Title: Pairwise Go/No-Go magnitude comparison with spatially arranged Arabic digits and Turkish number words.
Authors: Yenigüllü Ş; Space Magnitude Associations Research Team (SMART Lab), Izmir University of Economics, Izmir, Turkey., Gür E; Department of Psychology, Izmir University of Economics, Balçova, Izmir, 35330, Turkey.; Space Magnitude Associations Research Team (SMART Lab), Izmir University of Economics, Izmir, Turkey., Bulut M; Department of Psychology, Yaşar University, Izmir, Turkey.; Neuro-Cognitive-Experimental Studies Laboratory (NEXUS Lab), Yaşar University, Izmir, Turkey., Çetinkaya H; Department of Psychology, Yaşar University, Izmir, Turkey.; Neuro-Cognitive-Experimental Studies Laboratory (NEXUS Lab), Yaşar University, Izmir, Turkey., Dural S; Department of Psychology, Izmir University of Economics, Balçova, Izmir, 35330, Turkey. seda.dural@ieu.edu.tr.; Space Magnitude Associations Research Team (SMART Lab), Izmir University of Economics, Izmir, Turkey. seda.dural@ieu.edu.tr.
Source: Psychological research [Psychol Res] 2026 Sep 19; Vol. 90 (5). Date of Electronic Publication: 2026 Sep 19.
Publication Type: Journal Article
Language: English
Journal Info: Publisher: Springer-Verlag Country of Publication: Germany NLM ID: 0435062 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1430-2772 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 03400727 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Psychol Res Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s): Original Publication: Berlin, New York, Springer-Verlag.
MeSH Terms: Space Perception*/physiology , Pattern Recognition, Visual*/physiology , Mathematics*, Reaction Time/physiology ; Humans ; Female ; Male ; Young Adult ; Adult
Abstract: Pairwise magnitude comparison requires participants to evaluate the relative magnitude of two simultaneously presented numerical stimuli, and performance is commonly indexed by the numerical distance effect. Whether this processing is affected by spatial-numerical congruency between relative numerical magnitude and relative stimulus position-specifically, an advantage for the conventional small-left/large-right arrangement-remains less clear, especially when left-right response selection is minimized. The present study examined numerical distance effects and spatial-numerical congruency in a pairwise go/no-go magnitude-comparison task. Across two experiments, participants viewed two numerical stimuli, one on the left and one on the right. They made a single central response only when the task-relevant number appeared in the instructed spatial position. Experiment 1 used Arabic digits, whereas Experiment 2 used Turkish number words. In both experiments, participants completed either a small-number or a large-number task. Robust numerical distance effects were observed in both experiments and task versions, indicating reliable access to relative numerical magnitude. In contrast, evidence for spatial-numerical congruency was limited and task-dependent. The conventional small-left/large-right arrangement did not produce a general response-time advantage, and any congruency-related patterns were limited to the small-number task. These findings suggest that pairwise go/no-go comparison reliably engages relative-magnitude processing without necessarily producing stable or general spatial-numerical congruency. The results support a distinction between access to relative magnitude and the behavioral expression of spatial-numerical congruency under specific task configurations.
(© 2026. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)
Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Izmir University of Economics (approval number: E-97429853-050.04-88740) and was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. Consent to participate: All participants provided informed consent prior to participation. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
References: Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(2), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.365. (PMID: 10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.36515053695)
Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2009). Transfer of response codes from choice-response to go/no-go tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(6), 1216–1235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802426866. (PMID: 10.1080/17470210802426866)
Basso Moro, S., Dell’Acqua, R., & Cutini, S. (2018). The SNARC effect is not a unitary phenomenon. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(2), 688–695. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1408-3. (PMID: 10.3758/s13423-017-1408-3)
Bourgaux, L., De Hevia, M. D., & Charras, P. (2023). Spatio–numerical mapping in 3D: Is horizontal mapping the best candidate? Experimental Psychology, 70(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000575. (PMID: 10.1027/1618-3169/a00057536916697)
Bulut, M., Hepdarcan, I., Palaz, E., Çetinkaya, H., & Dural, S. (2023). No SNARC effect among left-to-right readers: Evidence from a Turkish sample. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 224–236. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0394-x. (PMID: 10.5709/acp-0394-x)
Bulut, M., Candemir, A., Şefikoğlu, M., Haugen, B., Çetinkaya, H., & Dural, S. (2026). Measuring SNARC effect: Different task setups reveal divergent spatial-numerical associations. Scientific Reports, 16, Article Article 12358. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-44140-0. (PMID: 10.1038/s41598-026-44140-04184001013079831)
Cipora, K., Patro, K., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2018). Situated influences on spatial-numerical associations. In T. L. Hubbard (Ed.), Spatial biases in perception and cognition (pp. 41–59). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316651247.004.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen Kadosh, R., Henik, A., & Rubinsten, O. (2008). Are Arabic and verbal numbers processed in different ways? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(6), 1377–1391. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013413. (PMID: 10.1037/a001341318980402)
D’Ascenzo, S., Fischer, M. H., Shaki, S., & Lugli, L. (2022). Number to me, space to you: Joint representation of spatial-numerical associations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(2), 485–491. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-02013-9. (PMID: 10.3758/s13423-021-02013-9)
Dehaene, S. (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition, 44(1–2), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90049-N. (PMID: 10.1016/0010-0277(92)90049-N1511583)
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371. (PMID: 10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371)
Dural, S., Çetinkaya, H., Hepdarcan, I., Gür, E., & Korkut, İ. (2025). Revisiting the SNARC effect: Testing magnitude classification in a Turkish sample typically lacking the SNARC effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 37(4), 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2025.2482600. (PMID: 10.1080/20445911.2025.2482600)
Eccher, E., Caparos, S., Buiatti, M., Piazza, M., & Vallortigara, G. (2025). A left-to-right bias in spatial numerical associations with dots and symbols. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.07.28.666512. (PMID: 10.1101/2025.07.28.666512)
Fattorini, E., Pinto, M., Rotondaro, F., & Doricchi, F. (2015). Perceiving numbers does not cause automatic shifts of spatial attention. Cortex, 73, 298–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.09.007. (PMID: 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.09.00726520681)
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146. (PMID: 10.3758/bf0319314617695343)
Fias, W. (2001). Two routes for the processing of verbal numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 65(4), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260100065. (PMID: 10.1007/s00426010006511789429)
Fischer, M. H., & Shaki, S. (2016). Measuring spatial–numerical associations: Evidence for a purely conceptual link. Psychological Research, 80(1), 109–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0646-0. (PMID: 10.1007/s00426-015-0646-025617061)
Gevers, W., Verguts, T., Reynvoet, B., Caessens, B., & Fias, W. (2006). Numbers and space: A computational model of the SNARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.32. (PMID: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.3216478324)
Gomez, P., Ratcliff, R., & Perea, M. (2007). A model of the go/no-go task. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 136(3), 389–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.389. (PMID: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.389176966902701630)
Gong, T., Li, B., Teng, L., Zhou, Z., Gao, X., & Jiang, T. (2019). The association between number magnitude and space is dependent on notation: Evidence from an adaptive perceptual orientation task. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 5(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.v5i1.169. (PMID: 10.5964/jnc.v5i1.169)
Holloway, I. D., & Ansari, D. (2009). Mapping numerical magnitudes onto symbols: The numerical distance effect and individual differences in children’s mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.04.001. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jecp.2008.04.00118513738)
Hung, Y. H., Hung, D. L., Tzeng, O. J. L., & Wu, D. H. (2008). Flexible spatial mapping of different notations of numbers in Chinese readers. Cognition, 106(3), 1441–1450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.017. (PMID: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.01717572403)
Jeglinski-Mende, M. A., Fischer, M. H., & Miklashevsky, A. (2023). Below zero? Universal distance effect and situated space and size associations in negative numbers. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 9(1), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.6763. (PMID: 10.5964/jnc.6763)
Kramer, P., Stoianov, I., Umiltà, C., & Zorzi, M. (2011). Interactions between perceptual and numerical space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(4), 722–728. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0104-y. (PMID: 10.3758/s13423-011-0104-y)
Lukas, S., Krinzinger, H., Koch, I., & Willmes, K. (2014). Number representation: A question of look? The distance effect in comparison of English and Turkish number words. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(2), 260–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.802002. (PMID: 10.1080/17470218.2013.80200223745841)
Moyer, R. S., & Bayer, R. H. (1976). Mental comparison and the symbolic distance effect. Cognitive Psychology, 8(2), 228–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90025-6. (PMID: 10.1016/0010-0285(76)90025-6)
Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519–1520. https://doi.org/10.1038/2151519a0. (PMID: 10.1038/2151519a06052760)
Nuerk, H.-C., Iversen, W., & Willmes, K. (2004). Notational modulation of the SNARC and the MARC (linguistic markedness of response codes) effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Section A, Human Experimental Psychology, 57(5), 835–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000512. (PMID: 10.1080/02724980343000512)
Nuerk, H.-C., Wood, G., & Willmes, K. (2005). The universal SNARC effect: The association between number magnitude and space is amodal. Experimental Psychology, 52(3), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.52.3.187. (PMID: 10.1027/1618-3169.52.3.18716076066)
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4. (PMID: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-45146491)
Ordin, M., El-Dakhs, D. A. S., & Polyanskaya, L. (2026). The effect of writing direction and task-specific experience on mapping time and numbers on space. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1558(1), Article e70282. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.70282. (PMID: 10.1111/nyas.702824201323613099111)
Patro, K., & Shaki, S. (2016). SNARC for numerosities is modulated by comparative instruction (and resembles some non-numerical effects). Cognitive Processing, 17(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0745-2. (PMID: 10.1007/s10339-015-0745-226714804)
Pekár, J., Hofmann, W., Knakker, B., Tamm, S., & Kinder, A. (2023). Electrophysiological correlates of the interaction of physical and numerical size in symbolic number processing: Insights from a novel go/nogo numerical Stroop task. Brain Sciences, 13(5), 702. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13050702. (PMID: 10.3390/brainsci130507023723917410216694)
Pinto, M., Pellegrino, M., Lasaponara, S., Cestari, V., & Doricchi, F. (2019a). Contrasting left/right codes for response selection must not be necessarily associated with contrasting numerical features to get the SNARC. Acta Psychologica, 198., Article 102887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102887.
Pinto, M., Pellegrino, M., Marson, F., Lasaponara, S., & Doricchi, F. (2019b). Reconstructing the origins of the space-number association: Spatial and number-magnitude codes must be used jointly to elicit spatially organised mental number lines. Cognition, 190, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.032. (PMID: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.03231079015)
Pinto, M., Pellegrino, M., Lasaponara, S., Scozia, G., D’Onofrio, M., Raffa, G., Nigro, S., Arnaud, C. R., Tomaiuolo, F., & Doricchi, F. (2021a). Number space is made by response space: Evidence from left spatial neglect. Neuropsychologia, 154, 107773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107773. (PMID: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.10777333567295)
Pinto, M., Pellegrino, M., Marson, F., Lasaponara, S., Cestari, V., D’Onofrio, M., & Doricchi, F. (2021b). How to trigger and keep stable directional space–number associations (SNAs). Cortex; A Journal Devoted To The Study Of The Nervous System And Behavior, 134, 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.10.020. (PMID: 10.1016/j.cortex.2020.10.02033307270)
Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2018). Deconstructing spatial-numerical associations. Cognition, 175, 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.022. (PMID: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.02229500963)
Shaki, S., Petrusic, W. M., & Leth-Steensen, C. (2012). SNARC effects with numerical and non-numerical symbolic comparative judgments: Instructional and cultural dependencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026729. (PMID: 10.1037/a002672922288694)
Stoianov, I., Kramer, P., Umiltà, C., & Zorzi, M. (2008). Visuospatial priming of the mental number line. Cognition, 106(2), 770–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.013. (PMID: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.01317555739)
Toomarian, E. Y., & Hubbard, E. M. (2018). On the genesis of spatial–numerical associations: Evolutionary and cultural factors co-construct the mental number line. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 90, 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.04.010. (PMID: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.04.010)
van Dijck, J.-P., & Fias, W. (2011). A working memory account for spatial-numerical associations. Cognition, 119(1), 114–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.013. (PMID: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.01321262509)
Viarouge, A., Hubbard, E. M., & McCandliss, B. D. (2014). The cognitive mechanisms of the SNARC effect: An individual differences approach. PLoS One, 9(4), Article e95756. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095756. (PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095756247600483997411)
Wong, B., Bull, R., & Ansari, D. (2018). Magnitude processing of written number words is influenced by task, rather than notation. Acta Psychologica, 191, 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.09.010. (PMID: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.09.01030286428)
Wood, G., Willmes, K., Nuerk, H. C., & Fischer, M. H. (2008). On the cognitive link between space and number: A meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(4), 489–525.
Grant Information: 2209-A, 2024 Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu; GEBİP-2019 Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi
Entry Date(s): Date Created: 20260919 Date Completed: 20260919 Latest Revision: 20261027
Update Code: 20261027
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-026-02386-3
PMID: 42762247
Database: MEDLINE
Description
ISSN:1430-2772
DOI:10.1007/s00426-026-02386-3