finger counting habits in middle-eastern and western individuals

7/30/2019 Finger Counting Habits in Middle-Eastern and Western Individuals

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/finger-counting-habits-in-middle-eastern-and-western-individuals 1/30



Finger Counting Habits

2

Abstract

The current study documents the presence of cultural differences in the development of

finger counting strategies. About 900 Middle-Eastern (i.e., Iranian) and Western (i.e., European

and American) individuals reported in an online survey how they map numbers onto their fingers

when counting from 1 to 10. The analysis of these bimanual counting patterns revealed clear

cross-cultural differences in the hand and finger starting preferences: While most Western

individuals started counting with the left hand and associated the number 1 with their thumb,

most Middle-Eastern respondents preferred to start counting with the right hand and preferred to

map the number 1 onto their little finger. The transition between the two hands during counting

showed equal proportions of symmetry-based and spatial continuity-based patterns in the two

cultures. Implications of these findings for numerical cognition and for the origin of the well-

known association between numbers and space are discussed.

Keywords: finger counting, mental number line, numerical cognition, reading direction.

Abstract : 146 words; Main text: 4,724 words




3

Our ability to precisely quantify arbitrarily large sets of objects is a key cultural

achievement. At the root of this ability may be an evolutionarily inherited “number sense” that

allows us to tell rapidly and effortlessly the precise numerosity of small sets. But this basic sense

of quantity is assisted by acquired counting skills as we deal with larger sets (for discussion see

the review by Göbel, Shaki, & Fischer, this issue). Counting involves the repetitive establishing

of a one-to-one correspondence between an ordered series of count words and the available

objects. Once all objects have been counted the last count word gives the cardinality of the set.

Counting is a cultural technique that is acquired in the first four years of life by most children,

and it universally relies on the use of body parts, most often the fingers.

Finger counting has been documented in almost all cultures present and past, making the

hand the “earliest calculating machine” (Ifrah, 1981, chapter 3; Pika, Nicolandis, & Marentette,

2009). The use of fingers is also the origin of the base 10 of our number system, and the term

“digit” for numerals was already introduced from the Latin into English in the 14th century

(Richardson, 1916, p. 7). Anthropological studies show that, in several languages, the word

“five” has common ancestors with the words “fist” or “hand” (Menninger, 1969). All counting

techniques must solve the fundamental problem of where to start – i.e. which finger is assigned

to the first number? As we will show below, this problem has recently become a matter of

renewed interest for numerical cognition researchers.




4

The Romans, whose hand shapes during finger counting provided the inspiration for their

number symbols (Cushing, 1892), were familiar with counting from 1 to 99 on the left hand

alone (Bechtel, 1909). Consistent with this historical information, Bede’s influential medieval

finger counting guide prescribed use of the left hand to depict numbers up to 100, but older

sources such as Greek poems frequently reported the use of the right hand (e.g., Richardson,

1916). Could this inconsistency be due to different hand preferences of those individuals whose

behaviors were reported? In agreement with this speculation, Cushing (1892, p. 292) postulated

that, due to “…the universality of right handedness and of the tendency to number with the

fingers, […] the right hand has ever been the counter, the fingers of the left hand the ones

counted”. This proposal was reiterated by Dantzig (1930/1954), who further argued that “...

primitive man rarely goes about unarmed. If he wants to count he tucks his weapon under his

arm, the left arm as a rule, and counts on his left hands, using his right hand as a check-off.”

(1954, p. 13). However, Dantzig dropped the further claim of Cushing that this style of

counting would involve facing the palm, thus making the little finger the most convenient

starting point. The little finger may also become a starting point due to its small size, thus

conveniently marking the smallest numerosity (what may be called the “smallest finger

heuristic”).

Conant (1896/1960, p. 437f.) stated that almost all of 206 investigated children (aged 4–8

years) from public schools in Worcester/Massachusetts began to count with their left hand, and

that this left-preference remained in an older cohort. He also reported that the starting finger was

initially arbitrary but then a preference for a palm-down posture and starting with the little finger

(known as “pinkie”) emerged. Conant (1896/1960) argued that this developmental change

possibly reflects a combination of the smallest finger heuristic and the acquisition of reading




5

habits, because in a palm down posture the little finger of the left hand is on the left side, which

corresponds to the starting position of reading in Western languages.

Summarizing this brief review, there seems to be a clear trend towards starting to count

on the left side. In addition to hand preference, the tendency to map small numbers with the left

side of space could also reflect the influence of the writing system, which is from left to right in

the predominantly Western populations that have been investigated by numerical cognition

researchers so far (for further discussion see Gıbel et al., this issue). Little information seems to

exist about finger counting preferences in contemporary cultures that use right to left writing

systems, and hardly any data seem to address the issue of whether the left start preference

reverses in left-handers, although this prediction was made by several scholars.

Recently, these issues have been systematically re-addressed in the study of numerical

cognition. Specifically, the claim has been investigated that our cognitive representation of

numerical magnitude information has a spatial component (the SNARC effect; Dehaene, Bossini

& Giraux, 1993; for a recent review see Wood & Fischer, 2008). The SNARC effect is one of

several empirical observations that have led numerical cognition researchers to postulate a

“mental number line”, i.e., a cognitive representation of numerical magnitude information in the

form of a linear arrangement with small numbers to the left of larger numbers. While it was

originally proposed that reading habits were the cause for the left-to-right arrangements of

numbers along the mental number line, more recent work suggested that such habits were not as

powerful as previously thought, and that this spatial bias is already present in Western children

before reading acquisition (Opfer & Furlong, this issue; Gıbel et al., this issue).

As an alternative proposal to explain the left bias for small numbers, an influence of

finger counting habits on the SNARC effect was reported by Fischer (2008). The author




6

measured start preferences for finger counting, as well as general hand preference in 445 Scottish

adults. It emerged that 66% of respondents preferred to start counting on the left hand (so-called

“left-starters”). This outcome supported the hypothesis that the association between small

numbers and left space could well be a result of habitual finger counting. Importantly, the

percentage of left-starters was similar for left-handed and for right-handed participants, thus

suggesting that hand preference does not affect the starting hand in finger counting. Another

result of this questionnaire study was that the thumb was most often assigned to the number 1. A

follow-up experiment investigated whether finger counting habits modulated the spatial mapping

of numbers. Although the SNARC effect was not reversed for right- compared to left-starters,

left-starters as a group had a stronger and more consistent spatial-numerical mapping (Fischer,

2008, Experiment 2).

The notion that finger representations are crucially involved in the acquisition of number

processing strategies received support from research indicating that children’s finger gnosis is a

good predictor of their later numerical skills (Noel, 2005). Additional evidence for a coupling

between hand motor circuits and representations of numerical magnitude has been provided by

behavioral and neuroimaging studies with adults (e.g., Lindemann, Abolafia, Girardi, &

Bekkering, 2007; Andres, Seron, & Olivier, 2007; Fischer & Campens, 2008). Taken together,

these results suggest that finger counting habits affect numerical cognition throughout life.

The present study followed up on this recent work by comparing finger counting

preferences in different countries. Although we did not systematically dissociate national,

cultural, and language-related influences on finger counting, we compared counting patterns

between respondents who are familiar with a left-to right orthography and respondents who are

familiar with a right-to-left orthography. Cross-cultural comparisons suggest that the direction of




7

writing affects several aspects of cognitive processing (Vaid & Singh, 1989; Chokron & Imbert,

1993). It might therefore be speculated that generalized scanning habits also have an impact on

the development of finger counting strategies. However, research into the acquisition of spatial

aspects of counting is still very limited (e.g., Opfer & Furlong, this issue). First empirical

evidence supporting the notion of culturally mediated developmental changes comes from a

recent study of Shaki, Göbel and Fischer (2010) demonstrating that Israeli children initially start

counting on their left side but when they learn to read and write Hebrew they prefer starting on

their right side.

To document the role of cultural effects in adults’ finger counting, we performed an

online survey and compared finger counting habits in Western and Middle-Eastern cultures. All

languages common in the Middle East except Hebrew have an Arabic alphabet and use Eastern

Arabic digits. Importantly, the directionality of writing is opposite to that from Western

languages [Footnote 1]. One of the most spoken Middle Eastern languages is Persian or Farsi,

the official language of Iran. We asked Iranian as well as European and American participants of

an internet-based questionnaire study in Persian or English language how they map the numbers

1 to 10 onto the fingers of their hands [Footnote 2].

Method

We developed a computer-based version of the finger counting questionnaire previously

described by Fischer (2008). To minimize the problem of the high drop-out rates in internet

surveys (Reips, 2002), we kept the online questionnaire as short as possible so that respondents

could answer all questions within 3 minutes. All instructions and questions, originally formulated

in English, were also translated into Persian. Both the Persian and English versions of the




8

questionnaire were made available via the internet. The English questionnaire was advertised via

email to several colleagues working in the field of mathematical cognition who informed their

students. The Persian questionnaire was advertised among Iranian students via the websites of

the Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran. The period of data collection was about six weeks for

both questionnaires and yielded in total data from 988 participants.

Materials

A welcome page informed visitors of the website that the survey investigated finger

counting habits and that participation was anonymous. Once a visitor had agreed to participate, a

form asked for basic demographic data (i.e., gender, age, mother tongue and country of birth).

Afterwards, an instruction screen (in either Persian or English) stated: ”Please hold your empty

hands in front of you and then count aloud from one to ten, using your fingers as you count.

Click the OK button when you have done this.”

Please insert Figure 1 about here

When the participant had clicked the OK button, a schematic drawing of two supine

hands with thumbs pointing outwards appeared, together with ten input fields, one located next

to each finger (see Figure 1). The input field consisted of a drop-down menu with the numbers

one to ten, displayed as either Eastern Arabic (i.e., , , , , , , , , , ) or Western Arabic

(i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) numerals in the Persian and the English versions of the

questionnaire, respectively. Participants were instructed to remember how they had just counted

with the fingers of both hands and to select the matching numbers in the corresponding input

fields. Afterwards, participants answered 12 forced-choice questions about their hand preference

(for details see Fischer, 2008) and indicated by clicking one of three radio buttons whether the




9

left, right or either hands were used to perform certain everyday activities. We added a question

about the hand used to control the mouse cursor.

Control experiment

A control experiment had established that participants’ answers to the finger counting

questionnaire are not affected by whether they enact or write their responses. Specifically, 56

consecutive participants (aged 18-37 years, 10 males, mostly English native speakers) in various

psychology experiments at the University of Dundee were asked at the beginning of their

participation to enact twelve different activities to establish their hand preference, followed by

enacting the finger count. Their responses were recorded by the experimenter who subsequently,

after an unrelated experiment of about 30 min duration, administered the written version of the

finger counting questionnaire. From among 52 completed data sets, only 5 had different

response pattern between the enacted and written versions (three changed from left to right

starting, 2 from right to left), phi correlation between enacted and written responses Φ=.80,

p<.001. Thus, it is unlikely that the response mode distorted the evidence we discuss next.

Technical implementation

The Persian and English versions of our online questionnaire were absolutely identical

with respect to the layout and control of the user interface [Footnote 3]. The two websites were

however based on different software technologies. For the Persian version, we tried to achieve a

maximal technical compatibility so that the questionnaire was even accessible from very

restrictive network infrastructures. We therefore refrained from using any client-side scripting

and implemented the finger counting questionnaire as mere HTML website. For the English

version, we developed a Java application and embedded it as an applet in our website. One

advantage of this technology is that it allows the highest degree of control and accuracy of the




10

visual presentations, as well as a measurement of responses times. However, the compatibility of

Java code is slightly limited, because it will be blocked by firewalls of networks with high

security standards. Importantly, the Java program was developed in such a way that it could later

also be used as a stand-alone (off-line) application [Footnote 4]. The software development

application attached moreover special importance to an easy translation of the questionnaire into

different languages. All language-related settings and text elements can be simply modified via

XML files. Our questionnaire software provides therefore an interesting platform-independent

tool for a computer-based measurement and cross-cultural comparison of finger counting habits

in online research as well as in the laboratory. A demonstration of the Persian and English online

versions of our questionnaires and a download of the Java implementation for offline laboratory

research can be found at http://code.google.com/p/hand-counting-questionnaire .

Results

In order to control for multiple submissions, we checked all answers for time consistency

and filtered all possible double responses that came from the same client computer (identified by

IP address) within a period of 30 minutes (cf. Reips, 2002).

Demographics

English Version, Western Population.

The English version of the finger counting questionnaire was filled in by 542 individuals.

30 respondents who did not answer all questions, and 35 respondents who reported native

languages that did not involve left-to-right writing were excluded from the sample. The

remaining 477 Western participants consisted of 338 females (70.5%) and 139 males. Their




11

average age was 26.6 years (std= 9.2 years). Most participants were born in a Western European

country and were native speakers of a West Germanic language (English, Dutch, or German).

Detailed frequencies of countries of birth and native languages are presented in Table 1.

Persian Version, Middle-Eastern Population.

The Persian finger counting questionnaire was filled in by 446 native Persian speaking

Iranian individuals (predominantly students of Payame Noor University, Tehran). 50 data sets

were excluded due to incomplete submissions, resulting in a sample size of 396 respondents, of

which 218 participants were female (55.1%) and 178 male. The average age was 27.8 years

(std=7.5 years).

Hand preference scores

Hand preference was determined by calculating the differences between the number of

“Right” responses and the number of “Left” responses. Given the 13 questions, a handedness

score could thus range between -13 and + 13. In line with the suggestion of Coren (1993),

respondents were classified as right-handers if their handedness scores were larger than 1/3 of

the maximum score, as left-handers if their scores was smaller than 1/3 of the minimum score

and as ambidextrous otherwise. In total, 76 participants were left-handed, 34 ambidextrous and

763 right-handed. This proportion of left- and right-handed participants is in line with previous

studies (e.g., Hardyck & Petrinovich, 1977). Importantly, there were no differences in hand

preference proportions between Middle-Eastern and Western participants, χ 2(2)=1.48.




12

Finger counting habits

Finger counting responses were considered invalid when not all fingers were assigned a

number or when the same number was assigned to multiple fingers (n=58). The remaining 815

valid responses were analyzed. The results are summarized in Table 2.

Please insert Table 2 and Figure 2 about here

Hand Starting Preferences for Finger Counting.

Respondents were classified as “left starters” when they mapped the numbers from one to

five to the fingers of the left hand. Respondents who indicated using exclusively fingers of the

right hand to count to five were classified as “right starters”. Interestingly, 68% of Western

participants indicated to map the numbers 1 to 5 onto fingers of the left hand and the other 32%

started with the right hand (see Table 2b). This difference between hands was significant,

χ 2(1)=60.24, p<.001, effect size parameter Cramér's Phi φc=.36.

Importantly, the proportion of left and right starters was reversed for Middle-Eastern

individuals who reported an overall preference to start counting with the right hand (63.4 % vs.

34.9 %), χ 2(1)=28.90, p<.001, φc=.29 (see also Figure 2). Thus, the hand preference for finger

counting depends strongly on a person’s cultural background and is different for Middle-Eastern

and Western individuals, χ 2(1)=84.1, p<.001, φc=.32.

A cross-tabulation test of the frequencies with the factors Hand Preference (left, right)

and Hand Starting Preference (left, right) revealed that handedness and counting habits of

Middle-Eastern participants were independent and did not interact, χ 2(1)=2.50, p>.1. However,

the proportion of left- and right-starters was different among Western left-handed (n=36 vs. n=4)

and right-handed participants (n=266 vs. n=137), χ 2(1)=9.65, p<.01, φc=.15, suggesting a more




13

pronounced left-starting preference among Western left-handers. However, given the highly

unbalanced sample size of left and right handers, and due to the lack of interaction between

handedness and starting preference in Middle-Eastern individuals, it is unclear how reliable this

interaction between handedness and hand starting preference is.

Preferred Finger Sequences.

Middle-Eastern and Western participants used different fingers to indicated the number 1,

χ 2(1)=272.40, p<.001, φc=.56. While Western individuals showed a clear preference to start

counting with the thumb as compared to the pinkie, χ 2(1)=294.79, p<.001, φc=.81, most Middle-

Eastern individuals preferred to start counting with the pinkie compared to the thumb,

χ 2(1)=35.01, p<.001, φc=.32 (Table 2c).

Our questionnaire implied that both hands had to be used for counting from 1 to 10, and

this feature allowed us to compare preferences for anatomically symmetric vs. spatially

continuous counting patterns. Anatomical symmetry is characterized by mapping an ascending

number sequence on the same fingers of each hand. That is, if the left thumb (or pinkie)

represents the smallest number on one hand, then the other thumb (or pinkie) will represent the

smallest number on the other hand. In other words, the starting fingers of the first and second

hand are anatomically identical. In contrast, spatially continuous counting is characterized by a

directional mapping of numbers onto the spatial positions of the fingers. That is, as we look at

our palms, the ordinal distance between numbers always corresponds to the ordinal distance

between fingers. Spatially continuous counting implies always a change of the identity of the

starting finger for the first hand (number 1) to a different starting finger for the second hand

(number 6).




14

The analysis of bimanual counting patterns revealed that most participants preferred

anatomical symmetry over spatial continuity (Table 2d). This preference was significant for both

Western, χ 2(1)=38.82, p<.001, φc=.30, and Middle-Eastern participants, χ 2(1)=5.17, p<.05,

φc=.13. A significant interaction between culture and counting strategies revealed a less

pronounced preference for an anatomically symmetric counting for Middle-Eastern compared to

Western individuals, χ 2(1)=6.07, p<.05, φc=.09.

Finger Counting in Western participants.

Finally, we investigated for Western participants whether their finger counting habits

differed as a result of their different nationalities and associated languages (see Figure 2).

Comparing between English, Dutch, Finnish, German, and Italian languages, we found that the

proportion of left- and right starters was not affected by native language, χ 2(4)=7.34, p>.1. There

was, however, a significant difference in counting habits between individuals from the eight

different Western countries included (the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Canada, Finland,

Germany, Italy, Belgium and United States), χ 2(7)=14.20, p<.05, φc=.07. In particular, Belgian

and Italian individuals showed no preference for starting to count with the left hand ( p>.85),

while participants from other Western countries, especially from the UK and the US, had a clear

left starting preference (all ps<.001). The analysis of handedness scores showed that hand

preferences did not differ between the countries, χ 2(12)=15.84, p>.19.

Discussion

Several authors have recently suggested that finger counting strategies have an impact on

the cognitive representation of numbers, and in particular on the way in which numerical

magnitude information is mapped onto space (Butterworth, 1999; Di Luca, Grana, Semenza,




15

Seron, & Pesenti, 2006; Fischer, 2006, 2008; Sato, Cattaneo, Rizzolatti, & Gallese, 2007; Sato &

Lalain, 2008; Brozzoli, Ishihara, Göbel, Salemme, Rossetti, & Farne, 2008). Although there are

some reports from ethnological studies about counting strategies involving fingers and even the

whole body (e.g., counting systems of Papua New Guinea; Wassmann & Daen, 1994; see

Owens, 2001), surprisingly little is known about cultural differences in the association of

numbers with fingers across modern Middle-Eastern and Western countries. Our analyses of

reported number-to-finger mappings revealed substantial differences in counting habits: Two

thirds of Western participants mapped the numbers 1 to 5 onto the fingers of the left hand while

only one third preferred to start counting with their right hand. This result replicates and

generalizes a recent finding by Fischer (2008) in Scottish adults. Importantly, this ratio between

left and right starters was reversed for Middle-Eastern individuals. Furthermore, Western and

Middle Eastern individuals differed also with respect to preferred starting finger, that is, the first

finger used to count. Almost all Western participants associated the number 1 with the thumb,

whereas most Middle-Eastern participants started counting with the pinkie. Since handedness

scores were equivalently distributed across samples, this suggests a cultural impact on finger

counting strategies. One possible account for the observed reversal of the starting hand and

starting finger preferences could be the fact that Middle Eastern participants habitually read

Persian script from right to left, whereas Western participants habitually read Roman scripts

from left to right. But given the vast number of other culturally mediated differences between

the two populations, it is premature to conclude that reading habits are the sole cause for this

reversed preference.

The fact that most Middle-Eastern participants start counting on the right pinkie and most

Western participants start counting on the left thumb may well be related to differences in the




16

direction of prototypical scanning habits. Scanning habits are known to affect the perceived

midpoint of horizontal lines (Chokron & Imbert, 1993) and even the aesthetic preferences of

facial profiles (Nachson, Argaman, & Luria, 1999). These effects of habitual scanning direction

on cognition may in turn strengthen the plausibility of an influence of opposite reading directions

on the observed differences in the mapping of numbers to fingers. However, children already use

their fingers to count before they learn to read and write (Fuson, 1988; Noel, 2005), which in

turn argues against a special impact of reading direction on starting preferences for finger

counting. Moreover, the ubiquitous association between numerosity and space has been shown to

emerge even before formal reading learning (de Hevia & Spelke, 2009; Opfer & Furlong, this

issue). Thus, it seems more plausible that finger counting habits are related to eye scanning

habits in visual perception outside of reading (Vaid & Singh, 1989; Sakhuja et al., 1996) and to

perceptual biases in lateralized visual space, which are already present in kindergarten children

(Chokron & De Agostini, 1995).

Our study focused on a cross-cultural comparison of counting habit among adults, and we

cannot exclude the possibility that our participants developed their hand starting preference as

the result of an improvement of their reading and writing skills. For a better understanding of the

origin of such spatially biased counting habits it will be useful to study hand and finger

preferences in children in future research. Another approach to address this important question

could be a comparison of speakers of the same language and culture that are trained to use

different scripts involving opposite reading directions. This is, for instance, the case in Iranian

blind and sighted individuals (i.e., left-to-right oriented Persian Braille script vs. right-to-left

oriented Persian script).




17

Several authors have argued that the spatial orientation of the “mental number line” is the

result of the directionality of one’s reading and writing system (Zebian, 2005, Dehaene et al.,

1993). Support for this notion came from the finding that members of right-to-left writing

cultures, like Arabic [Footnote 5] speaking monolinguals, showed different SNARC effects

compared to native speakers of Western languages (Zebian, 2005). The outcome of the present

study does not support the idea that cultural differences in the orientation of the mental number

line depend on long-lasting reading habits and language-related processes. Our finding of a

strong cultural influence on finger counting habits suggests rather that cross-cultural differences

in spatial number coding should not be exclusively attributed to differently oriented writing

systems (see Shaki & Fischer, 2008; Lindemann, Abolafia, Pratt, & Bekkering, 2008). Instead,

the asymmetry in the numerical domain of adults might rather reflect differences in the

utilizations of hands and fingers while acquiring knowledge about number and learning to count

(Fischer, 2008).

So far, bimanual aspects of finger-number mappings have largely been neglected in

research on numerical cognition. We observed different symmetry principles when comparing

the finger counting sequences across hands. Specifically, two different mapping principles were

characterized by either anatomical symmetry or spatial continuity. The majority (60%) of

participants reported an anatomically symmetric finger-number mapping, engaging the same

sequences of fingers to count from 6 to 10 with their second hand as they had used to count from

1 to 5 with their first hand (e.g., from thumb to pinkie). Only 30 % of participants reported a

spatially continuous finger counting strategy and mapped numbers spatially congruent with the

ordinal position of the fingers in space. Note that spatially continuous mapping involves different

starting fingers for each hand. Research on bimanual co-ordination suggests that symmetrical




18

movements are normally preferred and performed more fluently (Kelso, 1984; Spijkers, Heuer,

Kleinsorge, & van der Loo, 1997). The advantage of anatomical symmetry in motor control has

been attributed to a benefit for the activation of homologous muscles or the programming of

movements with identical motor parameters. This property of the motor system explains maybe

why most respondents in our survey prefer an anatomically symmetric counting that deviates

from the spatially continuous “mental number line” mapping that predominates in mathematics

education in both Western and Middle Eastern cultures (Ifrah, 1981). And although this

observation would seem to run against the notion of a spatially continuous number line, it does

not conflict with the idea that finger counting induces a preferential association of small numbers

with one side of space.

The relative proportion of anatomically symmetric and spatially continuous counters was

identical in Middle-Eastern and Western cultures. This suggests that the use of different

between-hand transition principles is the result of an individual strategic decision to represent

numbers. Between-hand transitions might also be constrained by individual biological factors,

such as kinematic factors and cortical overlap. Thus, while cross-cultural differences in the start

hand preferences for counting might help to explain qualitative differences in spatial-numerical

mappings (i.e., the orientation of the “mental number line”), the analysis of transition principles

in bimanual finger counting could clarify intra-individual quantitative differences in spatial

number coding: Individuals who use a spatially continuous counting strategy might show a more

pronounced tendency to map numerical magnitude information onto space compared to

individuals using an anatomical symmetric finger mapping. This prediction remains to be tested

in future research.




19

Interestingly, our data suggest that the strength of the average left starting preference

varies across Western countries. The strongest preference to start counting with the left hand was

observed among respondents from the three Anglo-Saxon countries in our sample, that is, from

the United States, United Kingdom and Canada. In contrast with this Anglo-Saxon counting

habit, we observed a relatively balanced ratio among Italian and Belgian left and right starters.

This geographical-cultural clustering of finger counting habits supports the notion that finger

counting habits are culturally mediated and relatively independent from the directionality of

writing systems. Although the sample size of Italian respondents is relative small and needs to be

enlarged for a reliable conclusion, the absence of a left start preference seems consistent with the

report by Di Luca et al. (2006), who postulated a right start preference as the prototypical Italian

finger-counting habit (see Sato & Lalain, 2008, for a similar observation in French individuals).

Further cross-cultural comparisons of finger counting habits will help us to understand why

certain effects of spatial-numerical coding vary between studies from different countries and

might also explain existing inconsistencies in the literature on number processing.




20

References

Andres, M., Seron, X., & Olivier, E. (2007). Contribution of hand motor circuits to counting.

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(4), 563-576.

Bechtel, E. A. (1990). Finger counting among the Romans in the fourth century. Classical

Philology, 4(1), 25-31.

Brozzoli, C., Ishihara, M., Göbel, S. M., Salemme, R., Rossetti, Y., & Farne, A. (2008). Touch

perception reveals the dominance of spatial over digital representation of numbers.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(14), 5644-5648.

Butterworth, B. (1999). The mathematical brain. London: Macmillan.

Chokron, S., & De Agostini, M. (1995). Reading habits and line bisection: a developmental

approach. Cognitive Brain Research, 3(1), 51-58.

Chokron, S., & Imbert, M. (1993). Reading habits and line bisection. Cognitive Brain Research,

1, 219-222.

Conant, L. L. (1896/1960). Counting. In N. J.R. (Ed.), The World of Mathematics (Vol. 1, pp.

432-411). London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Coren, S. (1993). Left-Hander: Everything You Need to Know About Left-Handedness. London:

Murray.

Cushing, F. H. (1892). Manual concepts: A study of the influence of hand usage on culture

growth American Anthropologist, 5(4), 289-318.

Dantzig, T. (1930/1954). Number: The language of science (4th ed.). New York: Doubleday.

de Hevia, M.-D., & Spelke, E. S. (2009). Spontaneous mapping of number and space in adults

and young children. Cognition, 110(2), 198-207




21

Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number

magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371-396.

Di Luca, S., Grana, A., Semenza, C., Seron, X., & Pesenti, M. (2006). Finger-digit compatibility

in Arabic numeral processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(9),

1648-1663.

Fischer, M. H. (2006). The future for SNARC could be stark. Cortex, 42(8), 1066-1068.

Fischer, M. H. (2008). Finger counting habits modulate spatial-numerical associations. Cortex,

44(4), 386-392.

Fischer, M. H., & Campens, H. (2008). Pointing to numbers and grasping magnitudes.

Experimental Brain Research, 192(1), 149-153.

Fuson, K. C. (1988). Children’s Counting and Concepts of Number . New York: Springer-Verlag.

Göbel, S., Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (this issue). The cultural number line: A review of

cultural, educational and linguistic influences on number processing. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology.

Hardyck, C., & Petrinovich, L. F. (1977). Left-handedness. Psychological Bulletin, 84(3), 385-340.

Ifrah, G. (1981). The Universal History of Numbers: From Prehistory to the Invention of the

Computer London: The Harvill Press.

Kelso, J. A. S. (1984). Phase transition and critical behavior in human bimanual coordination.

American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology,

246 , R1000-R1004.

Lindemann, O., Abolafia, J. M., Girardi, G., & Bekkering, H. (2007). Getting a Grip on

Numbers: Numerical Magnitude Priming in Object Grasping. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1400-1409.




22

Lindemann, O., Abolafia, J. M., Pratt, J., & Bekkering, H. (2008). Coding Strategies in Number

Space: Memory Requirements Influence Spatial-Numerical Associations. Quarterly

Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(4), 515-524.

Menninger, K. (1969). Number words and number symbols. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Nachson, I., Argaman, E., & Luria, A. (1999). Effects of Directional Habits and Handedness on

Aesthetic Preference for Left and Right Profiles. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,

30(1), 106-114.

Noel, M. P. (2005). Finger gnosia: a predictor of numerical abilities in children? Child

Neuropsychology, 11, 413–430.

Opfer, J. E., & Furlong, E. E. (this issue). How Numbers Bias Preschoolers’ Spatial Search.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.

Owens, K. (2001). The work of Glendon Lean on the counting systems of Papua New Guinea

and Oceania. Mathematics Education Research Journal 13(1), 47-71.

Pika, S., Nicoladis, E., & Marentette, P. (2009). How to Order a Beer: Cultural Differences in the

Use of Conventional Gestures for Numbers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,

40(1), 70-80.

Reips, U. D. (2002). Standards for Internet-based experimenting. Experimental Psychology,

49(4), 243-256.

Richardson, L. J. (1916). Digital Reckoning Among the Ancients. The American Mathematical

Monthly, 23(1), 7-13.

Sakhuja, T., Gupta, G., Singh, M., & Vaid, J. (1996). Reading habits affect asymmetries in facial

affect judgements: a replication. Brain and Cognition, 32, 162–165.




23

Sato, M., Cattaneo, L., Rizzolatti, G., & Gallese, V. (2007). Corticospinal Excitability of Hand

Muscles during Numerical Judgment. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(4), 689-

693.

Sato, M., & Lalain, M. (2008). On the relationship between handedness and hand-digit mapping

in finger counting. Cortex, 44(4), 393-399.

Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2008). Reading space into numbers – a cross-linguistic comparison

of the SNARC effect. Cognition, 108 (2), 590-599.

Shaki, S., Göbel, S., & Fischer, M. (2010). Multiple Reading Habits Influence Counting

Direction In Israeli children. Poster presented at the 28th European workshop on

cognitive Neuropsychology.

Spijkers, W., Heuer, H., Kleinsorge, T., & van der Loo, H. (1997). Preparation of bimanual

movements with same and different amplitudes: Specification interference as revealed by

reaction time. Acta Psychologica, 96 , 207-227.

Vaid, J., & Singh, M. (1989). Asymmetries in the perception of facial affect: is there an influence

of reading habits? Neuropsychologia, 27 (10), 1277-1287.

Wassmann, J., & Dasen, P. R. (1994). Yupno number system and counting. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 25(1), 78-94.

Wood, G., & Fischer, M. (2008). Numbers, space, and action – From finger counting to the

mental number line and beyond Cortex, 44(4), 353-358.

Zebian, S. (2005). Linkages between Number Concepts, Spatial Thinking, and Directionality of

Writing: The SNARC Effect and the REVERSE SNARC Effect in English and Arabic

Monoliterates, Biliterates, and Illiterate Arabic Speakers. Journal of Cognition and

Culture, 5(1-2), 165-190.




24

Authors’ Notes

We are grateful to all colleagues and students which helped us to advertise our website

with the finger counting questionnaire. There are too many to be mentioned here.

Oliver Lindemann is part of the Interactive Collaborative Information Systems (ICIS)

project, supported by the Dutch Ministry of economic affairs, grant nr: BSIK03024. Martin H.

Fischer was sponsored by the British Academy (SG 46947).




25

Footnotes

1. It should be mentioned, however, that the Eastern Arabic numbers used in Middle-

Eastern languages are written from left to right.

2. Some cultures have developed rather sophisticated finger counting strategies and count

well above 5 with a single hand (Ifrah, 1981). These types of counting strategies are not covered

by our questionnaire, since they are very uncommon for the Western and Middle-Eastern

populations investigated in the present study.

3. The appearance of buttons and drop-down menus of HTML websites and JAVA

applets do slight vary, depending on the client computer's operating system and browser. The

appearance of the two schematic hands was, however, unaffected.

4. Software requirements: The only requirement for an installation of the finger counting

questionnaire as stand-alone application (e.g. in the laboratory) is the Java runtime environment

(Version 6 or higher), which is freely available and usually pre-installed on modern computers.

To perform an online survey a standard HTML web-server (e.g., Apache) is required that is

configured to work with a PHP interpreter for hypertext pre-processing and an SQL database

(e.g., MYSQL) to store the collected data. On the client side, merely an internet browser with

Java is needed.

5. Note that Arabic and Persian are two closely related languages that share not only a

common alphabet but also the roots of about 60% of their words.




26

Tables

Table 1:

Frequencies and Percentages of the Countries of Birth and the Native Languages of the Western

Population Investigated with the English Version of the Questionnaire.

Country of birthNative Language

N % N %

Netherlands 108 22.6 English 175 36.7

UK 86 18.1 Dutch 126 26.4

Canada 73 15.3 Finnish 54 11.3

Finland 54 11.3 German 44 9.2

Germany 41 8.8 Italian 38 8.0

Italy 38 8.0 other 40 8.4

Belgium 18 3.8

USA 15 3.1

other 44 9.22




27

Table 2:

Frequencies and percentages of finger counting habits indicted by the Western and Middle-

Eastern participants in the online survey.

Western

Participants

Middle-Eastern

Participants

N % N %

a) Counting pattern *

1 2 3 4 5

LT LI LM LR LP 268 57.9 68 19.3

LP LR LM LI LT 30 6.4 55 15.6

RT RI RM RR RP 130 28.1 77 21.9

RP RR RM RI RT 12 2.6 143 40.6

Other 23 5.0 9 2.6

b) Starting Hand

Left 315 68.0 123 34.9

Right 148 32.0 223 63.4

Unclassified 0 0 6 1.7

c) Starting Finger (i.e., Number 1)

Thumb 405 87.5 146 41.5

Pinkie 42 9.1 202 57.4

Other 16 3.5 4 1.1

d) Type of number-finger mapping

Anatomically symmetric 275 59.4 183 52.0

Spatially symmetric 147 31.7 142 40.3

Other 41 8.9 27 7.7

Invalid Pattern 14 44

Total 477 396

*Each letter pairs gives both the hand (L: left, R: right) and the finger (T:

thumb, I: index finger, M: middle finger, R: Ring finger; P: pinkie) used

to indicate the number at the top of its column.




28

Figure Captions

Figure 1. The computer-based finger counting questionnaire. The screen-shorts are taken from

both the Persian and English version and depict only two pages. Instruction screens and the form

for the demographic data are not depicted here.

Figure 2. Percentages of left starters for the Western respondents (light gray) from the different

countries (light gray) examined with the English questionnaire and the Middle-Eastern

respondents (dark gray) examined with the Persian questionnaire. UK: United Kingdom, CAN:

Canada, NED: The Netherlands, FIN: Finland, GER: Germany, ITA: Italy, BEL: Belgium, IRN:

Iran.



Finger Counting Habits, Figure 1



Finger Counting Habits, Figure 2

USA U K CAN NED FIN GER ITA BEL IRN

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% L

e f t S t a r t e r

finger counting habits in middle-eastern and western individuals

Documents