↓ Skip to main content

Contributions from specific and general factors to unique deficits: two cases of mathematics learning difficulties

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Contributions from specific and general factors to unique deficits: two cases of mathematics learning difficulties
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vitor G. Haase, Annelise Júlio-Costa, Júlia B. Lopes-Silva, Isabella Starling-Alves, Andressa M. Antunes, Pedro Pinheiro-Chagas, Guilherme Wood

Abstract

Mathematics learning difficulties are a highly comorbid and heterogeneous set of disorders linked to several dissociable mechanisms and endophenotypes. Two of these endophenotypes consist of primary deficits in number sense and verbal numerical representations. However, currently acknowledged endophenotypes are underspecified regarding the role of automatic vs. controlled information processing, and their description should be complemented. Two children with specific deficits in number sense and verbal numerical representations and normal or above-normal intelligence and preserved visuospatial cognition illustrate this point. Child H.V. exhibited deficits in number sense and fact retrieval. Child G.A. presented severe deficits in orally presented problems and transcoding tasks. A partial confirmation of the two endophenotypes that relate to the number sense and verbal processing was obtained, but a much more clear differentiation between the deficits presented by H.V. and G.A. can be reached by looking at differential impairments in modes of processing. H.V. is notably competent in the use of controlled processing but has problems with more automatic processes, such as nonsymbolic magnitude processing, speeded counting and fact retrieval. In contrast, G.A. can retrieve facts and process nonsymbolic magnitudes but exhibits severe impairment in recruiting executive functions and the concentration that is necessary to accomplish transcoding tasks and word problem solving. These results indicate that typical endophenotypes might be insufficient to describe accurately the deficits that are observed in children with mathematics learning abilities. However, by incorporating domain-specificity and modes of processing into the assessment of the endophenotypes, individual deficit profiles can be much more accurately described. This process calls for further specification of the endophenotypes in mathematics learning difficulties.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Mexico 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 104 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 17%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 16 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 43 40%
Social Sciences 12 11%
Neuroscience 6 6%
Linguistics 4 4%
Mathematics 4 4%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 20 19%
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 13 February 2014.
All research outputs
#18,363,356
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,981
of 29,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,336
of 305,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#161
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 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 29,608 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 305,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.