↓ Skip to main content

Spatial biases during mental arithmetic: evidence from eye movements on a blank screen

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Spatial biases during mental arithmetic: evidence from eye movements on a blank screen
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Hartmann, Fred W. Mast, Martin H. Fischer

Abstract

While the influence of spatial-numerical associations in number categorization tasks has been well established, their role in mental arithmetic is less clear. It has been hypothesized that mental addition leads to rightward and upward shifts of spatial attention (along the "mental number line"), whereas subtraction leads to leftward and downward shifts. We addressed this hypothesis by analyzing spontaneous eye movements during mental arithmetic. Participants solved verbally presented arithmetic problems (e.g., 2 + 7, 8-3) aloud while looking at a blank screen. We found that eye movements reflected spatial biases in the ongoing mental operation: Gaze position shifted more upward when participants solved addition compared to subtraction problems, and the horizontal gaze position was partly determined by the magnitude of the operands. Interestingly, the difference between addition and subtraction trials was driven by the operator (plus vs. minus) but was not influenced by the computational process. Thus, our results do not support the idea of a mental movement toward the solution during arithmetic but indicate a semantic association between operation and space.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
India 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 91 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 21%
Student > Master 15 16%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Professor 6 6%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 54 57%
Neuroscience 6 6%
Unspecified 3 3%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 16 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 09 February 2015.
All research outputs
#4,121,897
of 25,500,206 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,184
of 34,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,433
of 360,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#140
of 394 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,500,206 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,572 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 360,225 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 394 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 64% of its contemporaries.