↓ Skip to main content

Professional mathematicians differ from controls in their spatial-numerical associations

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Professional mathematicians differ from controls in their spatial-numerical associations
Published in
Psychological Research, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00426-015-0677-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Krzysztof Cipora, Mateusz Hohol, Hans-Christoph Nuerk, Klaus Willmes, Bartosz Brożek, Bartłomiej Kucharzyk, Edward Nęcka

Abstract

While mathematically impaired individuals have been shown to have deficits in all kinds of basic numerical representations, among them spatial-numerical associations, little is known about individuals with exceptionally high math expertise. They might have a more abstract magnitude representation or more flexible spatial associations, so that no automatic left/small and right/large spatial-numerical association is elicited. To pursue this question, we examined the Spatial Numerical Association of Response Codes (SNARC) effect in professional mathematicians which was compared to two control groups: Professionals who use advanced math in their work but are not mathematicians (mostly engineers), and matched controls. Contrarily to both control groups, Mathematicians did not reveal a SNARC effect. The group differences could not be accounted for by differences in mean response speed, response variance or intelligence or a general tendency not to show spatial-numerical associations. We propose that professional mathematicians possess more abstract and/or spatially very flexible numerical representations and therefore do not exhibit or do have a largely reduced default left-to-right spatial-numerical orientation as indexed by the SNARC effect, but we also discuss other possible accounts. We argue that this comparison with professional mathematicians also tells us about the nature of spatial-numerical associations in persons with much less mathematical expertise or knowledge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 64 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 24%
Student > Master 9 14%
Professor 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 55%
Mathematics 3 5%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Philosophy 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 13 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 14 July 2020.
All research outputs
#6,084,473
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#204
of 982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,132
of 268,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 982 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 268,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 66% of its contemporaries.