↓ Skip to main content

Significant Inter-Test Reliability across Approximate Number System Assessments

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Significant Inter-Test Reliability across Approximate Number System Assessments
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00310
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas K. DeWind, Elizabeth M. Brannon

Abstract

The approximate number system (ANS) is the hypothesized cognitive mechanism that allows adults, infants, and animals to enumerate large sets of items approximately. Researchers usually assess the ANS by having subjects compare two sets and indicate which is larger. Accuracy or Weber fraction is taken as an index of the acuity of the system. However, as Clayton et al. (2015) have highlighted, the stimulus parameters used when assessing the ANS vary widely. In particular, the numerical ratio between the pairs, and the way in which non-numerical features are varied often differ radically between studies. Recently, Clayton et al. (2015) found that accuracy measures derived from two commonly used stimulus sets are not significantly correlated. They argue that a lack of inter-test reliability threatens the validity of the ANS construct. Here we apply a recently developed modeling technique to the same data set. The model, by explicitly accounting for the effect of numerical ratio and non-numerical features, produces dependent measures that are less perturbed by stimulus protocol. Contrary to their conclusion we find a significant correlation in Weber fraction across the two stimulus sets. Nevertheless, in agreement with Clayton et al. (2015) we find that different protocols do indeed induce differences in numerical acuity and the degree of influence of non-numerical stimulus features. These findings highlight the need for a systematic investigation of how protocol idiosyncrasies affect ANS assessments.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 40%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 56%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 33%
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 12 March 2016.
All research outputs
#15,364,458
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,725
of 29,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,034
of 299,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#337
of 469 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,887 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 299,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 469 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.