ArticleJournal of experimental child psychology2016
Individual differences in the components of children's and adults' information processing for simple symbolic and non-symbolic numeric decisions.
Article in Journal of experimental child psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Low and variable correlation between reaction time costs and accuracy costs explained by accumulation models: Meta-analysis and simulations.Psychological bulletin · 2018Pooled it
- Latent Neurocognitive Mechanisms Underlying Quantity Discrimination in Children with and without Mathematical Learning Disabilities.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Development of precision of non-symbolic arithmetic operations in 4-6-year-old children.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Delta plots for conflict tasks: An activation-suppression race model.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2021Review
- Computational neuroscience across the lifespan: Promises and pitfalls.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2018Review
- Modeling numerosity representation with an integrated diffusion model.Psychological review · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
How do speed and accuracy trade off, and what components of information processing develop as children and adults make simple numeric comparisons? Data from symbolic and non-symbolic number tasks were collected from 19 first graders (Mage=7.12 years), 26 second/third graders (Mage=8.20 years), 27 fourth/fifth graders (Mage=10.46 years), and 19 seventh/eighth graders (Mage=13.22 years). The non-symbolic task asked children to decide whether an array of asterisks had a larger or smaller number than 50, and the symbolic task asked whether a two-digit number was greater than or less than 50. We used a diffusion model analysis to estimate components of processing in tasks from accuracy, correct and error response times, and response time (RT) distributions. Participants who were accurate on one task were accurate on the other task, and participants who made fast decisions on one task made fast decisions on the other task. Older participants extracted a higher quality of information from the stimulus arrays, were more willing to make a decision, and were faster at encoding, transforming the stimulus representation, and executing their responses. Individual participants' accuracy and RTs were uncorrelated. Drift rate and boundary settings were significantly related across tasks, but they were unrelated to each other. Accuracy was mainly determined by drift rate, and RT was mainly determined by boundary separation. We concluded that RT and accuracy operate largely independently.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.