ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2018
A commentary on Chen and Campbell (2017): Is there a clear case for addition fact recall?
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automatic activation of the shared-digit network in the solution of complex multiplication problems.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Do production and verification tasks in arithmetic rely on the same cognitive mechanisms? A test using alphabet arithmetic.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2021Article
- Automatization through Practice: The Opportunistic-Stopping Phenomenon Called into Question.Cognitive science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
In their review of Uittenhove, Thevenot and Barrouillet (Cognition, 146, 289-303, 2016), Chen and Campbell (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2017 https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1328-2 ) concluded that existing evidence supports the conventional wisdom that basic non-zero addition combinations are stored and retrieved as discrete facts and that compacted reconstructive strategies play no role in expert mental addition. One aim of the present commentary is to detail why their evidence supporting these conclusions is not unequivocal. A second aim is to delineate key issues that still need to be addressed to build an accurate model of how basic sums are represented and retrieved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29508234What 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.