ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
To what extent is dot comparison an appropriate measure of approximate number system?
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
Introduction: Number sense has been systematically measured using dot comparison tasks. However, recent studies have reported that performance on dot comparison might be influenced inhibitory control and visual properties of dot arrays. In the present study, we analysed the influence of continuous magnitude, inhibitory control, and numerical ratio on the dot comparison performance of preschool children. Methods: Participants were 517 preschool children from 13 different schools in Chile. Children completed a dot comparison and two inhibitory control tasks. Gebuis and Reynvoet method was used to create well-controlled dot arrays for use in the dot comparison task. A logistic mixed effects model was conducted to predict participants' dot comparison accuracy. Continuous magnitude and ratio were entered as level-1 predictors and inhibitory control as level-2 predictors. Results: The results showed that all predictors made a significant contribution to dot comparison accuracy. Furthermore, a significant double interaction (inhibitory control x continuous magnitude) and a triple interaction (inhibitory control x continuous magnitude x ratio) showed that the contribution of inhibitory control skills in dot comparison accuracy depends on the continuous properties of dot arrays and ratio. Discussion: These findings suggest that preschool children rely more on continuous magnitudes than numerosity in dot comparison tasks. They also indicate that the greater children's inhibitory control, the more able they are to respond based on numerosity in fully incongruent trials, particularly when ratio is low (easiest items). Taken together, the above findings support the competing processes account provided that both ANS and inhibitory control skills influence performance on dot comparison tasks.
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.