Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40208516›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2025

Left digit bias in children's and adults' paper-and-pencil number line estimation.

Hilary Barth, Bethany Rutkowski, Leah Vaidya, Erin Kim, Cameron Bourassa, Annie Fabian, Sierra Eisen, Alexandra Zax, Katherine Williams, Andrea L Patalano

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Hilary BarthDepartment of Psychology, Wesleyan University, 207 High Street, Middletown, CT, 06459, USA. hbarth@wesleyan.edu.
Bethany RutkowskiDepartment of Psychology, Wesleyan University, 207 High Street, Middletown, CT, 06459, USA.
Leah VaidyaDepartment of Psychology, Wesleyan University, 207 High Street, Middletown, CT, 06459, USA.
Erin KimDepartment of Psychology, Wesleyan University, 207 High Street, Middletown, CT, 06459, USA.
Cameron BourassaDepartment of Psychology, Wesleyan University, 207 High Street, Middletown, CT, 06459, USA.
Annie FabianDepartment of Psychology, Wesleyan University, 207 High Street, Middletown, CT, 06459, USA.
Sierra EisenDepartment of Psychology, Wesleyan University, 207 High Street, Middletown, CT, 06459, USA.
Alexandra ZaxDepartment of Psychology, Wesleyan University, 207 High Street, Middletown, CT, 06459, USA.
Katherine WilliamsDepartment of Psychology, Wesleyan University, 207 High Street, Middletown, CT, 06459, USA.
Andrea L PatalanoDepartment of Psychology, Wesleyan University, 207 High Street, Middletown, CT, 06459, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation DRL-1920445
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Number line estimation tasks are frequently used to learn about numerical thinking, learning, and development. These tasks are often interpreted as though estimates are determined by overall magnitudes of target numerals, rather than specific instantiating digits. Yet estimates are strongly biased by leftmost digits. For example, numbers like "698" are placed too far to the left of numbers like "701" on a 0-1,000 line. This "left digit effect" or "left digit bias" has been investigated little in children, and only on electronic tasks. Here, we ask whether left digit bias appears in paper-and-pencil estimates, and whether it differs for paper-based versus computer-based tasks. In Study 1, 5- to 8-year-old children completed a 0-100 number line task on paper. In Study 2, 7- to 11-year-olds completed a 0-1,000 paper task. In Study 3, adults completed tasks on paper in both ranges. Large left digit effects were observed for children aged 8 years or older and adults, but we did not find evidence for left digit bias in younger children. Study 4 compared paper and computer tasks for adults and children aged 9-12 years. Strong left digit bias was observed in all conditions, with a larger effect for the paper-based task in children. Large left digit effects in number line estimation emerge regardless of task format, with a developmental trajectory broadly consistent with other studies. For children in the age range that reliably exhibits left digit bias (but not adults), paper-and-pencil number line estimation tasks elicit even greater bias than computer-based tasks.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentFunctional LateralityMathematical ConceptsPattern Recognition, VisualAdultChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultEstimationLeft digit biasLeft digit effectNumber lineNumerical cognition

Identifiers

PMID40208516
PMCPMC12589305

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.