↓ Skip to main content

Activation of the intermediate sum in intentional and automatic calculations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Activation of the intermediate sum in intentional and automatic calculations
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01512
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yael Abramovich, Liat Goldfarb

Abstract

Most research investigating how the cognitive system deals with arithmetic has focused on the processing of two addends. Arithmetic that involves more addends has specific cognitive demands such as the need to compute and hold the intermediate sum. This study examines the intermediate sums activations in intentional and automatic calculations. Experiment 1 included addition problems containing three operands. Participants were asked to calculate the sum and to remember the digits that appeared in the problem. The results revealed an interference effect in which it was hard to identify that the digit representing the intermediate sum was not actually one of the operands. Experiment 2, further examined if the intermediate sum is activated automatically when a task does not require calculation. Here, participants were presented with a prime of an addition problem followed by a target number. The task was to determine whether the target number is odd or even, while ignoring the addition problem in the prime. The results suggested that the intermediate sum of the addition problem in the prime was activated automatically and facilitated the target. Overall, the implications of those findings in the context of theories that relate to cognitive mathematical calculation is further discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 11%
Unknown 8 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 44%
Student > Master 3 33%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Unknown 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 67%
Arts and Humanities 1 11%
Social Sciences 1 11%
Unknown 1 11%
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 02 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,428,159
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,166
of 29,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,033
of 275,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#420
of 533 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,814 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 275,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 533 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.