27.12.2013 Views

The influence of the place-value structure of the Arabic number ...

The influence of the place-value structure of the Arabic number ...

The influence of the place-value structure of the Arabic number ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Factorial Analyses (ANOVA and t-tests)<br />

Non-bisected triplets (RT and error data):<br />

Response latencies: An analysis <strong>of</strong> variance (ANOVA) incorporating <strong>the</strong> factors<br />

distance to <strong>the</strong> middle, size relative to <strong>the</strong> middle and group was conducted on z- transformed<br />

RTs. Most importantly, and in accordance with <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis, a reliable interaction between<br />

size relative to <strong>the</strong> arithmetical middle and patient group was obtained [see Figure 1A, F(1,<br />

16) = 6.40, p < .05]. This indicates that neglect patients did benefit reliably less from a central<br />

<strong>number</strong> smaller than <strong>the</strong> triplet’s arithmetical middle than did control participants (426 ms vs.<br />

637 ms). However, this disadvantage for neglect patients did not seem to be modulated by<br />

distance to <strong>the</strong> arithmetical middle. This was indicated by <strong>the</strong> non-significant three-way<br />

interaction <strong>of</strong> distance to <strong>the</strong> middle, interval side and group [F(1, 16) < 1]. However, from<br />

<strong>the</strong> notion <strong>of</strong> a spatially oriented MNL (e.g. Dehaene et al., 1993), it can be inferred that<br />

neglect patients should exhibit a more pronounced disadvantage in triplets such as 21_22_35<br />

compared to e.g. 21_27_35. On <strong>the</strong> one hand, both central <strong>number</strong>s are smaller than <strong>the</strong><br />

arithmetical middle <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interval (e.g. 28) in <strong>the</strong>se examples. But on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, <strong>the</strong>y<br />

differ in <strong>the</strong>ir distance to <strong>the</strong> middle: while 27 is numerically close to <strong>the</strong> arithmetical middle<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interval (e.g. 28), 22 is far smaller than <strong>the</strong> middle. Assuming an ascending left-to-right<br />

orientation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> MNL, 22 would be located fur<strong>the</strong>r to <strong>the</strong> left than 27 and should thus be<br />

even more neglected. To directly test this hypo<strong>the</strong>sis <strong>the</strong> absolute effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> factor size<br />

relative to <strong>the</strong> arithmetical middle were contrasted for neglect patients vs. non-neglect<br />

controls separately for triplets with a central <strong>number</strong> ei<strong>the</strong>r numerically close to <strong>the</strong><br />

arithmetical middle or far from it using Bonferroni-Holm corrected t-tests (Holm, 1979). <strong>The</strong><br />

beneficial effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> central <strong>number</strong> being smaller than <strong>the</strong> arithmetical middle only tended<br />

to be less pronounced for neglect patients [t(16) = 1.95, p = .07, one-sided], whereas neglect<br />

patients benefited reliably less from a second <strong>number</strong> far smaller than <strong>the</strong> arithmetical middle<br />

[t(16) = 2.19, p < .05, one-sided]. This indeed indicates a greater relative disadvantage for<br />

215

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!