You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Number Processing and Heterogeneity of Developmental Dyscalculia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Learning Disabilities, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1177/0022219414522707 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kenny Skagerlund, Ulf Träff |
| Abstract |
This study investigated if developmental dyscalculia (DD) in children with different profiles of mathematical deficits has the same or different cognitive origins. The defective approximate number system hypothesis and the access deficit hypothesis were tested using two different groups of children with DD (11-13 years old): a group with arithmetic fact dyscalculia (AFD) and a group with general dyscalculia (GD). Several different aspects of number magnitude processing were assessed in these two groups and compared with age-matched typically achieving children. The GD group displayed weaknesses with both symbolic and nonsymbolic number processing, whereas the AFD group displayed problems only with symbolic number processing. These findings provide evidence that the origins of DD in children with different profiles of mathematical problems diverge. Children with GD have impairment in the innate approximate number system, whereas children with AFD suffer from an access deficit. These findings have implications for researchers' selection procedures when studying dyscalculia, and also for practitioners in the educational setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pakistan | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 148 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 14% |
| Researcher | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 24 | 16% |
| Unknown | 36 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 71 | 48% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Unknown | 42 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 09 January 2016.
All research outputs
#1,732,843
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Learning Disabilities
#53
of 850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,754
of 221,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Learning Disabilities
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 221,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.