↓ Skip to main content

Individual strategy ratings improve the control for task difficulty effects in arithmetic problem solving paradigms

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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 strategy ratings improve the control for task difficulty effects in arithmetic problem solving paradigms
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01188
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nadja Tschentscher, Olaf Hauk

Abstract

Mental arithmetic is a powerful paradigm to study problem solving using neuroimaging methods. However, the evaluation of task complexity varies significantly across neuroimaging studies. Most studies have parameterized task complexity by objective features such as the number size. Only a few studies used subjective rating procedures. In fMRI, we provided evidence that strategy self-reports control better for task complexity across arithmetic conditions than objective features (Tschentscher and Hauk, 2014). Here, we analyzed the relative predictive value of self-reported strategies and objective features for performance in addition and multiplication tasks, by using a paradigm designed for neuroimaging research. We found a superiority of strategy ratings as predictor of performance above objective features. In a Principal Component Analysis on reaction times, the first component explained over 90 percent of variance and factor loadings reflected percentages of self-reported strategies well. In multiple regression analyses on reaction times, self-reported strategies performed equally well or better than objective features, depending on the operation type. A Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis confirmed this result. Reaction times classified task complexity better when defined by individual ratings. This suggests that participants' strategy ratings are reliable predictors of arithmetic complexity and should be taken into account in neuroimaging research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 21%
Student > Master 3 21%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 21%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%
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 August 2015.
All research outputs
#18,422,065
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,149
of 29,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,405
of 264,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#460
of 558 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 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 29,780 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 264,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 558 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.