The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Area vs. density: influence of visual variables and cardinality knowledge in early number comparison
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00805 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Roberto A. Abreu-Mendoza, Elia E. Soto-Alba, Natalia Arias-Trejo |
| Abstract |
Current research in the number development field has focused in individual differences regarding the acuity of children's approximate number system (ANS). The most common task to evaluate children's acuity is through non-symbolic numerical comparison. Efforts have been made to prevent children from using perceptual cues by controlling the visual properties of the stimuli (e.g., density, contour length, and area); nevertheless, researchers have used these visual controls interchangeably. Studies have also tried to understand the relation between children's cardinality knowledge and their performance in a number comparison task; divergent results may in fact be rooted in the use of different visual controls. The main goal of the present study is to explore how the usage of different visual controls (density, total filled area, and correlated and anti-correlated area) affects children's performance in a number comparison task, and its relationship to children's cardinality knowledge. For that purpose, 77 preschoolers participated in three tasks: (1) counting list elicitation to test whether children could recite the counting list up to ten, (2) give a number to evaluate children's cardinality knowledge, and (3) number comparison to evaluate their ability to compare two quantities. During this last task, children were asked to point at the set with more geometric figures when two sets were displayed on a screen. Children were exposed only to one of the three visual controls. Results showed that overall, children performed above chance in the number comparison task; nonetheless, density was the easiest control, while correlated and anti-correlated area was the most difficult in most cases. Only total filled area was sensitive to discriminate cardinal principal knowers from non-cardinal principal knowers. How this finding helps to explain conflicting evidence from previous research, and how the present outcome relates to children's number word knowledge is discussed. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Mexico | 1 | 25% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 51 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 12% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 22 | 42% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 8% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 4% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 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 05 February 2014.
All research outputs
#12,594,824
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,203
of 29,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,885
of 280,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#493
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,546 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 61% 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 280,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 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.