Spatial complexity facilitates ordinal mapping with a novel symbol set.

The representation of number symbols is assumed to be unique, and not shared with other ordinal sequences. However, little research has examined if this is the case, or whether properties of symbols (such as spatial complexity) affect ordinal learning. Two studies were conducted to investigate if the property of spatial complexity affects learning ordinal sequences. In Study 1, 46 adults made a series of judgements about two novel symbol sets (Gibson and Sunúz). The goal was to find a novel symbol set that could be ordered by spatial complexity. In Study 2, 84 adults learned to order nine novel symbols (Sunúz) with a paired comparison task, judging which symbol was 'larger' (whereby the larger symbol became physically larger as feedback), and were then asked to rank the symbols. Participants were assigned to either a condition where there was a relationship between spatial complexity and symbol order, or a condition where there was a random relationship. Of interest was whether learning an ordered list of symbols would be facilitated by the spatial complexity of the novel symbols. Findings suggest spatial complexity affected learning ability, and that pairing spatial complexity with relational information can facilitate learning ordinal sequences. This suggests that the implicit cognitive representation of number may be a more general feature of ordinal lists, and not exclusive to number per se.

The Importance of Ordinal Information in Interpreting Number/Letter Line Data.

The degree to which the ability to mark the location of numbers on a number-to-position (NP) task reflects a mental number line (MNL) representation, or a representation that supports ordered lists more generally, is yet to be resolved. Some argue that findings from linear equation modeling, often used to characterize NP task judgments, support the MNL hypothesis. Others claim that NP task judgments reflect strategic processes; while others suggest the MNL proposition could be extended to include ordered list processing more generally. Insofar as the latter two claims are supported, it would suggest a more nuanced account of the MNL hypothesis is required. To investigate these claims, 84 participants completed a NP and an alphabet-to-position task in which they marked the position of numbers/letters on a horizontal line. Of interest was whether: (1) similar judgment deviations from linearity occurred for number/letter stimuli; (2) left-to-right or right-to-left lines similarly, affected number/letter judgments; and (3) response times (RTs) differed as a function of number/letter stimuli and/or reverse/standard lines. While RTs were slower marking letter stimuli compared to number stimuli, they did not differ in the standard compared to the reverse number/letter lines. Furthermore, similar patterns of non-linear RTs were found marking stimuli on the number/letter lines, suggesting that similar strategic processes were at play. These findings suggest that a general mental representation may underlie ordered list processing and that a linear mental representation is not a unique feature of number per se. This is consistent with the hypothesis that number is supported by a representation that lends itself to processing ordered sequences in general.