Symbolic and non-symbolic numbers differently affect center identification in a number-line bisection task

Numerical and spatial representations are intertwined as in the Mental Number Line, where smaller numbers are on the left and larger numbers on the right. This relationship has been repeatedly demonstrated with various experimental approaches, such as the line bisection task. Spatial accuracy appears to be systematically distorted leftward for smaller digits by elaboration of spatial codes during number processing. Other studies have investigated perceptual and visuo-spatial attention bias using the digit line bisection task, suggesting that these effects may be related to a cognitive illusion in which the reference numbers project their values onto the straight line, creating an illusory lateral disparity. On the other hand, both dot arrays (non-symbolic stimuli) and arabic numbers (symbolic stimuli) demonstrate a privileged relation between spatial and numerical elaboration. The bias toward the larger numerosity flanker was attributed to a length illusion. There is, however, no consensus regarding whether physical features and symbolic and non-symbolic numerical representations exert the same influence over spatial ones. In the present study, we carried out a series of 4 Experiments to provide further evidence for a better understanding of the nature of this differential influence. All experiments presented the numbers in both symbolic and non-symbolic formats. In Experiment 1, the numbers “2-8” were presented in a variety of left-right orientations. In Experiment 2, the flankers were identical, “2-2” or “8-8”, and symmetrically displaced with respect to the line. In Experiment 3, we employed asymmetrically distributed eight dots, or font sizes in “8-8” numerals, to create a perceptual imbalance. In Experiment 4, we replicated the manipulation used in Experiment 3, but with two dots and “2-2” numerals. The Non-Symbolic format induced stronger leftward biases, particularly when the larger numerosity (Experiment 1) or the denser stimuli near the line (Experiments 3 and 4) were on the left, while no bias emerged when flankers were numerically equivalent and symmetrical (Experiment 2). The left bias may result from a tendency to estimate the influence of stimulus perception associated with participants’ scanning direction, similar to the direction of pseudoneglect. Conversely, the Symbolic format induced mostly right bias, possibly due to left-lateralized processing and a tendency to use a common strategy involving scanning from left to right. Altogether our data support the view that abstract numbers and non-symbolic magnitude affect perceptual and attentional biases, yet in distinctive ways.