↓ Skip to main content

Finding the SNARC Instead of Hunting It: A 20∗20 Monte Carlo Investigation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Finding the SNARC Instead of Hunting It: A 20∗20 Monte Carlo Investigation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01194
Pubmed ID
Authors

Krzysztof Cipora, Guilherme Wood

Abstract

The Spatial Numerical Association of Response Codes (SNARC) effect describes a stimulus-response association of left with small magnitude and right with large magnitude. Usually, it is estimated by means of regression slopes, where the independent variable only has a limited number of levels. Inspection of the literature reveals that it is not difficult to detect a SNARC effect within a group, but it has been quite unusual to find group differences. Is the SNARC effect as it is usually estimated using regression slopes largely insensitive to group differences, and are there design parameters necessary to increase sensitivity in group comparison analyses? Using numerical simulations, we provide evidence that both sample size and the number of stimulus repetitions, as well as intra-individual variability, contribute in a substantial way to the probability of detecting an existing SNARC effect. Our results show that the adequate choice of either sample size or number of repetitions per experimental cell does not fully compensate for a poor choice of the other parameter. Moreover, repeated failures to find significant group differences in the SNARC effect can be explained by insufficient power. Fortunately, increasing the number of repetitions to about 20 and testing at least 20 participants provides in most cases sufficient sensitivity to reliably detect the SNARC effect as well as group differences. Power plots are provided, which may help to improve both the economy and sensitivity of experimental design in future SNARC experiments, or, more generally when regression slopes are estimated intra-individually.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 64%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Unknown 7 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#5,775,034
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,323
of 30,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,155
of 314,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#210
of 560 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,174 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 314,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 560 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 61% of its contemporaries.