↓ Skip to main content

The impact of inhibition capacities and age on number–space associations

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Processing, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
The impact of inhibition capacities and age on number–space associations
Published in
Cognitive Processing, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10339-014-0601-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danielle Hoffmann, Delia Pigat, Christine Schiltz

Abstract

Numerical and spatial representations are tightly linked, i.e., when doing a binary classification judgment on Arabic digits, participants are faster to respond with their left/right hand to small/large numbers, respectively (Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes, SNARC effect, Dehaene et al. in J Exp Psychol Gen 122:371-396, 1993). To understand the underlying mechanisms of the well-established SNARC effect, it seems essential to explore the considerable inter-individual variability characterizing it. The present study assesses the respective roles of inhibition, age, working memory (WM) and response speed. Whereas these non-numerical factors have been proposed as potentially important factors to explain individual differences in SNARC effects, none (except response speed) has so far been explored directly. Confirming our hypotheses, the results show that the SNARC effect was stronger in participants that had weaker inhibition abilities (as assessed by the Stroop task), were relatively older and had longer response times. Interestingly, whereas a significant part of the age influence was mediated by cognitive inhibition, age also directly impacted the SNARC effect. Similarly, cognitive inhibition abilities explained inter-individual variability in number-space associations over and above the factors age, WM capacity and response speed. Taken together our results provide new insights into the nature of number-space associations by describing how these are influenced by the non-numerical factors age and inhibition.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Germany 2 3%
Unknown 57 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 21%
Student > Master 11 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 52%
Neuroscience 5 8%
Engineering 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 17 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2014.
All research outputs
#20,235,415
of 22,761,738 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Processing
#293
of 337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#264,491
of 305,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Processing
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,761,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,553 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.