↓ Skip to main content

An Extension of the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis from Developmental Language Disorders to Mathematical Disability

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
58 Google+ users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
An Extension of the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis from Developmental Language Disorders to Mathematical Disability
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01318
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanya M. Evans, Michael T. Ullman

Abstract

Mathematical disability (MD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting math abilities. Here, we propose a new explanatory account of MD, the procedural deficit hypothesis (PDH), which may further our understanding of the disorder. According to the PDH of MD, abnormalities of brain structures subserving the procedural memory system can lead to difficulties with math skills learned in this system, as well as problems with other functions that depend on these brain structures. This brain-based account is motivated in part by the high comorbidity between MD and language disorders such as dyslexia that may be explained by the PDH, and in part by the likelihood that learning automatized math skills should depend on procedural memory. Here, we first lay out the PDH of MD, and present specific predictions. We then examine the existing literature for each prediction, while pointing out weaknesses and gaps to be addressed by future research. Although we do not claim that the PDH is likely to fully explain MD, we do suggest that the hypothesis could have substantial explanatory power, and that it provides a useful theoretical framework that may advance our understanding of the disorder.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 105 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 15%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Master 10 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 8%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 31%
Neuroscience 12 11%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 32 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 173. 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 November 2020.
All research outputs
#232,025
of 25,328,635 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#489
of 34,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,462
of 329,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#15
of 425 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,328,635 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,208 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 329,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 425 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.