↓ Skip to main content

The neural circuits of number and letter copying: an fNIRS study

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
The neural circuits of number and letter copying: an fNIRS study
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00221-018-5204-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina Artemenko, Andra Coldea, Mojtaba Soltanlou, Thomas Dresler, Hans-Christoph Nuerk, Ann-Christine Ehlis

Abstract

In our daily lives, we are constantly exposed to numbers and letters. However, it is still under debate how letters and numbers are processed in the brain, while information on this topic would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of, for example, known influences of language on numerical cognition or neural circuits shared by numerical cognition and language processing. Some findings provide evidence for a double dissociation between numbers and letters, with numbers being represented in the right and letters in the left hemisphere, while the opposing view suggests a shared neural network. Since processing may depend on the task, we address the reported inconsistencies in a very basic symbol copying task using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). fNIRS data revealed that both number and letter copying rely on the bilateral middle and left inferior frontal gyri. Only numbers elicited additional activation in the bilateral parietal cortex and in the left superior temporal gyrus. However, no cortical activation difference was observed between copying numbers and letters, and there was Bayesian evidence for common activation in the middle frontal gyri and superior parietal lobules. Therefore, we conclude that basic number and letter processing are based on a largely shared cortical network, at least in a simple task such as copying symbols. This suggests that copying can be used as a control condition for more complex tasks in neuroimaging studies without subtracting stimuli-specific activation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Professor 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 15 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 24%
Neuroscience 8 17%
Chemistry 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 21 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,637,157
of 24,051,764 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#1,733
of 3,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,766
of 453,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#24
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,051,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 453,011 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.