↓ Skip to main content

Individual differences influence two-digit number processing, but not their analog magnitude processing: a large-scale online study

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
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.
Title
Individual differences influence two-digit number processing, but not their analog magnitude processing: a large-scale online study
Published in
Psychological Research, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00426-017-0964-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Huber, Hans-Christoph Nuerk, Ulf-Dietrich Reips, Mojtaba Soltanlou

Abstract

Symbolic magnitude comparison is one of the most well-studied cognitive processes in research on numerical cognition. However, while the cognitive mechanisms of symbolic magnitude processing have been intensively studied, previous studies have paid less attention to individual differences influencing symbolic magnitude comparison. Employing a two-digit number comparison task in an online setting, we replicated previous effects, including the distance effect, the unit-decade compatibility effect, and the effect of cognitive control on the adaptation to filler items, in a large-scale study in 452 adults. Additionally, we observed that the most influential individual differences were participants' first language, time spent playing computer games and gender, followed by reported alcohol consumption, age and mathematical ability. Participants who used a first language with a left-to-right reading/writing direction were faster than those who read and wrote in the right-to-left direction. Reported playing time for computer games was correlated with faster reaction times. Female participants showed slower reaction times and a larger unit-decade compatibility effect than male participants. Participants who reported never consuming alcohol showed overall slower response times than others. Older participants were slower, but more accurate. Finally, higher grades in mathematics were associated with faster reaction times. We conclude that typical experiments on numerical cognition that employ a keyboard as an input device can also be run in an online setting. Moreover, while individual differences have no influence on domain-specific magnitude processing-apart from age, which increases the decade distance effect-they generally influence performance on a two-digit number comparison task.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Mathematics 4 6%
Computer Science 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 19 28%
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 18 March 2019.
All research outputs
#5,974,993
of 24,450,293 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#191
of 1,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,258
of 450,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#9
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,450,293 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,008 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 450,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 68% of its contemporaries.