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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
On the Difference Between Numerosity Processing and Number Processing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01650 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne H. van Hoogmoed, Evelyn H. Kroesbergen |
| Abstract |
The ANS theory on the processing of non-symbolic numerosities and the ANS mapping account on the processing of symbolic numbers have been the most popular theories on numerosity and number processing, respectively, in the last 20 years. Recently, both the ANS theory and the ANS mapping account have been questioned. In the current study, we examined two main assumptions of both the ANS theory and the ANS mapping account. ERPs were measured in 21 participants during four same-different match-to-sample tasks, involving non-symbolic stimuli, symbolic stimuli, or a combination of symbolic and non-symbolic stimuli (i.e., mapping tasks). We strictly controlled the visual features in the non-symbolic stimuli. Based on the ANS theory, one would expect an early distance effect for numerosity in the non-symbolic task. However, the results show no distance effect for numerosity. When analyzing the stimuli based on visual properties, an early distance effect for area subtended by the convex hull was found. This finding is in line with recent claims that the processing of non-symbolic stimuli may be dependent on the processing of visual properties instead of on numerosity (only). With regards to the processing of symbolic numbers, the ANS mapping account states that symbolic numbers are first mapped onto their non-symbolic representations before further processing, since the non-symbolic representation is at the basis of processing the symbolic number. If the non-symbolic format is the basic format of processing, one would expect that the processing of non-symbolic numerosities would not differ between purely non-symbolic tasks and mapping tasks, resulting in similar ERP waveforms for both tasks. Our results show that the processing of non-symbolic numerosities does differ between the tasks, indicating that processing of non-symbolic number is dependent on task format. This provides evidence against the ANS mapping account. Alternative theories for both the processing of non-symbolic numerosities and symbolic numbers are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 17% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 17 | 41% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,046,924
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,937
of 30,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,787
of 337,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#378
of 753 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,505 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 60% 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 337,664 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 753 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.