ArticleScientific reports2024
Analogue magnitude representation of angles and its relation to geometric expertise.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The distance effect (comparing objects becomes easier with increasing differences in their magnitude) is observed in tasks ranging across domains, and its existence has been interpreted as evidence for analogue magnitude representation. Similarly, associations between response side and magnitude (faster left/right-sided responses to small/large objects, respectively) are observed across domains. We investigated the analogue processing of angles and the association between angle magnitude and response side in relation to geometric expertise. We compared the behavioural pattern of two groups-architects and controls-in a direct angle magnitude classification task (i.e., judge whether a presented angle was greater or less than 90°) and in an indirect task (i.e., judge whether an angle was drawn with a dashed or continuous line). We found a robust distance effect for reaction times and accuracy at the whole sample level and in each group separately. Architects revealed a smaller distance effect for accuracy than controls. This could be interpreted as an argument for a more precise analogue representation of angles in experts compared to non-experts. However, we did not find evidence for an association between angle magnitude and response side in any group.
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.