Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38053316›Full record

ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2024

Concepts of order: Why is ordinality processed slower and less accurately for non-consecutive sequences?

Declan Devlin, Korbinian Moeller, Iro Xenidou-Dervou, Bert Reynvoet, Francesco Sella

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Declan DevlinLoughborough University, Loughborough, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2042-900X
Korbinian MoellerLoughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
Iro Xenidou-DervouLoughborough University, Loughborough, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1511-6191
Bert ReynvoetKU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Francesco SellaLoughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
Loughborough University · GBKU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Both adults and children are slower at judging the ordinality of non-consecutive sequences (e.g., 1-3-5) than consecutive sequences (e.g., 1-2-3). It has been suggested that the processing of non-consecutive sequences is slower because it conflicts with the intuition that only count-list sequences are correctly ordered. An alternative explanation, however, may be that people simply find it difficult to switch between consecutive and non-consecutive concepts of order during order judgement tasks. Therefore, in adult participants, we tested whether presenting consecutive and non-consecutive sequences separately would eliminate this switching demand and thus improve performance. In contrast with this prediction, however, we observed similar patterns of response times independent of whether sequences were presented separately or together (Experiment 1). Furthermore, this pattern of results remained even when we doubled the number of trials and made participants explicitly aware when consecutive and non-consecutive sequences were presented separately (Experiment 2). Overall, these results suggest slower response times for non-consecutive sequences do not result from a cognitive demand of switching between consecutive and non-consecutive concepts of order, at least not in adults.

Indexed as

Concept FormationJudgmentReaction TimeAdolescentAdultAnalysis of VarianceFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationSerial LearningYoung AdultNumber order processingnumerical cognitionorder judgementordinal knowledgereverse distance effect

Identifiers

PMID38053316
PMCPMC11295408
OpenAlexW4389396461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.