↓ Skip to main content

The Neural Signatures of Processing Semantic End Values in Automatic Number Comparisons

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
The Neural Signatures of Processing Semantic End Values in Automatic Number Comparisons
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00645
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michal Pinhas, Chananel Buchman, Dmitri Lavro, David Mesika, Joseph Tzelgov, Andrea Berger

Abstract

The brain activity associated with processing numerical end values has received limited research attention. The present study explored the neural correlates associated with processing semantic end values under conditions of automatic number processing. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded while participants performed the numerical Stroop task, in which they were asked to compare the physical size of pairs of numbers, while ignoring their numerical values. The smallest end value in the set, which is a task irrelevant factor, was manipulated between participant groups. We focused on the processing of the lower end values of 0 and 1 because these numbers were found to be automatically tagged as the "smallest." Behavioral results showed that the size congruity effect was modulated by the presence of the smallest end value in the pair. ERP data revealed a spatially extended centro-parieto-occipital P3 that was enhanced for congruent versus incongruent trials. Importantly, over centro-parietal sites, the P3 congruity effect (congruent minus incongruent) was larger for pairs containing the smallest end value than for pairs containing non-smallest values. These differences in the congruency effect were localized to the precuneus. The presence of an end value within the pair also modulated P3 latency. Our results provide the first neural evidence for the encoding of numerical end values. They further demonstrate that the use of end values as anchors is a primary aspect of processing symbolic numerical information.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 20%
Student > Master 3 15%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 8 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 35%
Linguistics 2 10%
Computer Science 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 40%
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 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#17,778,101
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,712
of 7,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#263,113
of 387,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#121
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,155 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 387,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.