ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2017
Reassessing lateralization in calculation.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lesion-symptom mapping reveals differential relationships between language and precise versus approximate numeracy.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2025Article
- Mental Shopping Calculations: A Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Review
- The architecture of functional lateralisation and its relationship to callosal connectivity in the human brain.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Arithmetic learning in advanced age.PloS one · 2018Article
- Introduction: The origins of numerical abilities.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role of the left hemisphere in calculation has been unequivocally demonstrated in numerous studies in the last decades. The right hemisphere, on the other hand, had been traditionally considered subsidiary to the left hemisphere functions, although its role was less clearly defined. Recent clinical studies as well as investigations conducted with other methodologies (e.g. neuroimaging, transcranial magnetic stimulation and direct cortical electro-stimulation) leave several unanswered questions about the contribution of the right hemisphere in calculation. In particular, novel clinical studies show that right hemisphere acalculia encompasses a wide variety of symptoms, affecting even simple calculation, which cannot be easily attributed to spatial disorders or to a generic difficulty effect as previously believed. The studies reported here also show how the right hemisphere has its own specific role and that only a bilateral orchestration between the respective functions of each hemisphere guarantees, in fact, precise calculation. Vis-à-vis these data, the traditional wisdom that attributes to the right hemisphere a role mostly confined to spatial aspects of calculation needs to be significantly reshaped. The question for the future is whether it is possible to precisely define the specific contribution of the right hemisphere in several aspects of calculation while highlighting the nature of the cross-talk between the two hemispheres.This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'The origins of numerical abilities'.
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.