Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Reading: Relation Entre Taille Physique et Taille Numérique Dans la Comparaison de Chiffres Écrits Al...

Download

A- A+
Alt. Display

Research Article

Relation Entre Taille Physique et Taille Numérique Dans la Comparaison de Chiffres Écrits Alphabétiquement Ou Idéographiquement

Authors:

Ronald Peereman ,

Avenue Ad. Buyl 117 1050 Bruxelles, BE
X close

Daniel Holender

Avenue Ad. Buyl 117 1050 Bruxelles, BE
X close

Abstract

[Relation Between Physical and Numerical Size in a Comparison Between Digits Written Alphabetically or Ideographically]

 

Possible differences in the processing of digits written alphabetically or ideographically (as Arabic numerals) are studied by the use of a facilitation-interference paradigm. Two digits were simultaneously displayed one above the other. In one condition the task was to judge which digit was physically the largest while ignoring the orthogonal variation of numerical size. In the other condition, the task was to judge which digit was numerically the largest while ignoring the orthogonal variation of the physical size. Response latenties were measured Results for the two types of script, alphabetic vs. ideographic, were studied and compared as a function of the factorial combination of three variables: Type of trials, congruent, incongruent or neutral; substractive numerical distance between digits, one vs. three; and side of presentation, left, central or right visual field Physical judgments were almost unaffected by the experimental conditions. Numerical judgments show the usual effects except that compared with the literature, two discrepant results were observed: 1. no difference between the left and right field, and 2. a large influence of the irrelevant physical size when the digits are printed alphabetically.

How to Cite: Peereman, R. and Holender, D., 1984. Relation Entre Taille Physique et Taille Numérique Dans la Comparaison de Chiffres Écrits Alphabétiquement Ou Idéographiquement. Psychologica Belgica, 24(2), pp.147–164. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/pb.723
1
Views
Published on 01 Jan 1984.
Peer Reviewed

Downloads

  • PDF (EN)

    comments powered by Disqus