↓ Skip to main content

Behavioural evidence for sex differences in the overlap between subtraction and multiplication

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Processing, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Behavioural evidence for sex differences in the overlap between subtraction and multiplication
Published in
Cognitive Processing, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10339-016-0753-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Belinda Pletzer, Korbinian Moeller, Andrea Scheuringer, Frank Domahs, Hubert H. Kerschbaum, Hans-Christoph Nuerk

Abstract

The present study aims to identify factors that may influence the dissociability of number magnitude processing and arithmetic fact retrieval at the behavioural level. To that end, we assessed both subtraction and multiplication performance in a within-subject approach and evaluated the interdependence of unit-decade integration measures on the one hand as well as sex differences in the interdependence of performance measures on the other hand. We found that subtraction items requiring borrowing (e.g. 53-29 = 24, 3 < 9) are more error prone than subtraction items not requiring borrowing (e.g. 59-23 = 34, 9 > 3), thereby demonstrating a borrowing effect, which has been suggested as a measure of unit-decade integration in subtraction. Furthermore, we observed that multiplication items with decade-consistent distractors (e.g. 6 × 4 = 28 instead of 24) are more error prone that multiplication items with decade-inconsistent distractors (e.g. 6 × 4 = 30 instead of 24), thereby demonstrating a decade-consistency effect, which has been suggested as a measure of unit-decade integration in simple multiplication. However, the borrowing effect in subtraction was not correlated with the effect of decade consistency in simple multiplication in either men or women. This indicates that unit-decade integration arises from different systems in subtraction and multiplication. Nevertheless, men outperformed women not only in subtraction, but also in multiplication. Furthermore, subtraction and multiplication performance on correct solution probes were correlated in women, but unrelated in men. Thus, the view of differential systems for number magnitude processing and arithmetic fact retrieval may not be universal across sexes.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 33%
Professor 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 44%
Computer Science 1 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
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 01 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,444,553
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Processing
#245
of 337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,204
of 400,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Processing
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 9.3. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 400,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.