ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2021
Do production and verification tasks in arithmetic rely on the same cognitive mechanisms? A test using alphabet arithmetic.
Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bilingual problem size effect: an ERP study of multiplication verification and production in two languages.Translational issues in psychological science · 2023Article
- Impaired Arithmetic Fact Retrieval in an Adult with Developmental Dyscalculia: Evidence from Behavioral and Functional Brain Imaging Data.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Reevaluating the Language of Learning Advantage in Bilingual Arithmetic: An ERP Study on Spoken Multiplication Verification.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Automatization through Practice: The Opportunistic-Stopping Phenomenon Called into Question.Cognitive science · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, 17 adult participants were trained to solve alphabet-arithmetic problems using a production task (e.g., C + 3 = ?). The evolution of their performance across 12 practice sessions was compared with the results obtained in past studies using verification tasks (e.g., is C + 3 = F correct?). We show that, irrespective of the experimental paradigm used, there is no evidence for a shift from counting to retrieval during training. However, and again regardless of the paradigm, problems with the largest addend constitute an exception to the general pattern of results obtained. Contrary to other problems, their answers seem to be deliberately memorised by participants relatively early during training. All in all, we conclude that verification and production tasks lead to similar patterns of results, which can therefore both confidently be used to discuss current theories of learning. Still, deliberate memorization of problems with the largest addend appears earlier and more often in a production than a verification task. This last result is discussed in light of retrieval models.
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.