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

neglect patients for triplets involving a central number far smaller than (i.e. further to the left
of) the arithmetical middle.
Additionally, the ANOVA showed strong main effects of distance to the arithmetical
middle [F(1, 16) = 47.44, p < .001] and size relative to the middle [F(1, 16) = 27.18, p <
.001]. So, triplets in which the central number was numerically far from the arithmetical
middle were rejected faster than triplets with a central number numerically close to the middle
(4759 ms vs. 5470 ms). Moreover, triplets with a second number smaller than the arithmetical
middle were responded to faster than triplets with a second number larger than the middle
(4849 ms vs. 5380 ms). Furthermore, the interaction of distance to the middle and size relative
to the middle was reliable [F(1, 16) = 15.02, p < .01]. This means that for far numerical
distances to the middle the beneficial effect of a central number smaller than the arithmetical
middle was more pronounced than for close distances (948 ms vs. 114 ms). Finally, the two
groups, i.e. neglect and no neglect did not differ reliably in terms of RT [F(1, 16) < 1].
Figure 1: The beneficial effect in ms for triplets with a central number smaller than the arithmetical middle of
the interval separately for Non-neglect controls and neglect patients is depicted in Panel A. Panel B
gives the detrimental effect of decade crossing in % errors separated for non-neglect controls and
neglect patients.
216