ArticleScientific reports2025
A study of notation dependence in fraction magnitude processing using event related potentials.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Increasingly, research emphasizes that learning symbolic fractions (i.e., the quotient or ratio of two whole numbers) is challenging for both children and adults. However, humans and certain non-human animals are capable of representing the proportional relationships between non-symbolic magnitudes (e.g., dot arrays presented in different colors). The specific mechanisms underlying the relationship between symbolic and non-symbolic magnitude processing are still not sufficiently clear. In this study, we employed event-related potential (ERP) technology to investigate the relationship between symbolic and non-symbolic fractions in numerical processing. We found that, compared to symbolic fractions, the N1 component amplitude evoked by non-symbolic fractions was significantly more negative. When participants processed non-symbolic fractions, there was a significant difference in P3 amplitude between far distances and close distances; however, such differences were not observed when processing symbolic fractions. These findings lend support to the notion of a representation of fractions that is dependent on notation. This suggests that the processing of symbolic and non-symbolic fractions involves two distinct numerical systems.
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.