↓ Skip to main content

Nature or Nurture in Finger Counting: A Review on the Determinants of the Direction of Number–Finger Mapping

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Nature or Nurture in Finger Counting: A Review on the Determinants of the Direction of Number–Finger Mapping
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00363
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paola Previtali, Luca Rinaldi, Luisa Girelli

Abstract

The spontaneous use of finger counting has been for long recognized as critical to the acquisition of number skills. Recently, the great interest on space-number associations shifted attention to the practice of finger counting itself, and specifically, to its spatial components. Besides general cross-cultural differences in mapping numbers onto fingers, contrasting results have been reported with regard to the directional features of this mapping. The key issue we address is to what extent directionality is culturally mediated, i.e., linked to the conventional reading-writing system direction, and/or biologically determined, i.e., linked to hand dominance. Although the preferred starting-hand for counting seems to depend on the surveyed population, even within the same population high inter-individual variability minimizes the role of cultural factors. Even if so far largely overlooked, handedness represents a sound candidate for shaping finger counting direction. Here we discuss adults and developmental evidence in support of this view and we reconsider the plausibility of multiple and coexistent number-space mapping in physical and representational space.

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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 54 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 26%
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 4 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 61%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Linguistics 4 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 6 11%
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 06 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,132,733
of 25,171,799 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,960
of 34,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,500
of 193,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#183
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,171,799 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 193,581 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.