ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2020
Are small additions solved by direct retrieval from memory or automated counting procedures? A rejoinder to Chen and Campbell (2018).
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural evidence for procedural automatization during cognitive development: Intraparietal response to changes in very-small addition problem-size increases with age.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2023Article
- Effects of interstimulus interval and significance on electrodermal and central measures of the phasic orienting reflex (OR) in a dishabituation task.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The Evolution of Finger Counting between Kindergarten and Grade 2.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- 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
- Linear and nonlinear profiles of weak behavioral and neural differentiation between numerical operations in children with math learning difficulties.Neuropsychologia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contrary to the longstanding and consensual hypothesis that adults mainly solve small single-digit additions by directly retrieving their answer from long-term memory, it has been recently argued that adults could solve small additions through fast automated counting procedures. In a recent article, Chen and Campbell (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 739-753, 2018) reviewed the main empirical evidence on which this alternative hypothesis is based, and concluded that there is no reason to jettison the retrieval hypothesis. In the present paper, we pinpoint the fact that Chen and Campbell reached some of their conclusions by excluding some of the problems that need to be considered for a proper argumentation against the automated counting procedure theory. We also explain why, contrary to Chen and Campbell's assumption, the network interference model proposed by Campbell (Mathematical Cognition, 1, 121-164, 1995) cannot account for our data. Finally, we clarify a theoretical point of our model.
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.