↓ Skip to main content

Of Huge Mice and Tiny Elephants: Exploring the Relationship Between Inhibitory Processes and Preschool Math Skills

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Of Huge Mice and Tiny Elephants: Exploring the Relationship Between Inhibitory Processes and Preschool Math Skills
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01903
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Merkley, Jodie Thompson, Gaia Scerif

Abstract

The cognitive mechanisms underpinning the well-established relationship between inhibitory control and early maths skills remain unclear. We hypothesized that a specific aspect of inhibitory control drives its association with distinct math skills in very young children: the ability to ignore stimulus dimensions that are in conflict with task-relevant representations. We used an Animal Size Stroop task in which 3- to 6-year-olds were required to ignore the physical size of animal pictures to compare their real-life dimensions. In Experiment 1 (N = 58), performance on this task correlated with standardized early mathematics achievement. In Experiment 2 (N = 48), performance on the Animal Size Stroop task related to the accuracy of magnitude comparison, specifically for trials on which the physical size of dot arrays was incongruent with their numerosity. This highlights a process-oriented relationship between interference control and resolving conflict between discrete and continuous quantity, and in turn calls for further detailed empirical investigations of whether, how and why inhibitory processes matter to emerging numerical cognition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
Unknown 99 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 24%
Student > Master 20 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Researcher 6 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 51 50%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Mathematics 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 30 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,561,988
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,884
of 29,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,896
of 393,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#102
of 447 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,829 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 393,723 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 447 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.