↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Directional and Non-directional Spatial-Numerical Associations across the Lifespan

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Directional and Non-directional Spatial-Numerical Associations across the Lifespan
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01421
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manuel Ninaus, Korbinian Moeller, Liane Kaufmann, Martin H. Fischer, Hans-Christoph Nuerk, Guilherme Wood

Abstract

There is accumulating evidence suggesting an association of numbers with physical space. However, the origin of such spatial-numerical associations (SNAs) is still debated. In the present study we investigated the development of two SNAs in a cross-sectional study involving children, young and middle-aged adults as well as the elderly: (1) the SNARC (spatial-numerical association of response codes) effect, reflecting a directional SNA; and (2) the numerical bisection bias in a line bisection task with numerical flankers. Results revealed a consistent SNARC effect in all age groups that continuously increased with age. In contrast, a numerical bisection bias was only observed for children and elderly participants, implying an U-shaped distribution of this bias across age groups. Additionally, individual SNARC effects and numerical bisection biases did not correlate significantly. We argue that the SNARC effect seems to be influenced by longer-lasting experiences of cultural constraints such as reading and writing direction and may thus reflect embodied representations. Contrarily, the numerical bisection bias may originate from insufficient inhibition of the semantic influence of irrelevant numerical flankers, which should be more pronounced in children and elderly people due to development and decline of cognitive control, respectively. As there is an ongoing debate on the origins of SNAs in general and the SNARC effect in particular, the present results are discussed in light of these differing accounts in an integrative approach. However, taken together, the present pattern of results suggests that different cognitive mechanisms underlie the SNARC effect and the numerical bisection bias.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 59%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Linguistics 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 16 30%
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 05 November 2019.
All research outputs
#6,061,176
of 24,520,187 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,654
of 33,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,096
of 321,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#218
of 583 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,520,187 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,050 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 321,490 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 583 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 62% of its contemporaries.