Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2381/33321
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorClayton, Sarah E.-
dc.contributor.authorGilmore, C.-
dc.contributor.authorInglis, M.-
dc.date.accessioned2015-10-21T08:31:21Z-
dc.date.available2017-09-25T01:45:06Z-
dc.date.issued2015-09-25-
dc.identifier.citationActa Psychologica, 2015, 161, 177–184en
dc.identifier.issn0001-6918-
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000169181530055Xen
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2381/33321-
dc.descriptionThe file associated with this record is under a 24-month embargo from publication in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy, available at http://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/sharing. The full text may be available in the publisher links provided above.en
dc.description.abstractThe most common method of indexing Approximate Number System (ANS) acuity is to use a nonsymbolic dot comparison task. Currently there is no standard protocol for creating the dot array stimuli and it is unclear whether tasks that control for different visual cues, such as cumulative surface area and convex hull size, measure the same cognitive constructs. Here we investigated how the accuracy and reliability of magnitude judgements is influenced by visual controls through a comparison of performance on dot comparison trials created with two standard methods: the Panamath program and Gebuis & Reynvoet's script. Fifty-one adult participants completed blocks of trials employing images constructed using the two protocols twice to obtain a measure of immediate test-retest reliability. We found no significant correlation between participants' accuracy scores on trials created with the two protocols, suggesting that tasks employing these protocols may measure different cognitive constructs. Additionally, there were significant differences in the test–retest reliabilities for trials created with each protocol. Finally, strong congruency effects for convex hull size were found for both sets of protocol trials, which provides some clarification for conflicting results in the literature.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherElsevieren
dc.rightsCopyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. This manuscript version is made available after the end of the embargo period under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en
dc.subjectDot comparisonen
dc.subjectApproximate Number Systemen
dc.subjectNonsymbolic magnitude comparisonen
dc.subjectVisual cuesen
dc.subjectCongruency effectsen
dc.subjectNumerical cognitionen
dc.titleDot comparison stimuli are not all alike: The effect of different visual controls on ANS measurementen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.09.007-
dc.identifier.eissn1873-6297-
dc.identifier.piiS000169181530055X-
dc.description.statusPeer-revieweden
dc.description.versionPost-printen
dc.type.subtypeArticle-
pubs.organisational-group/Organisationen
pubs.organisational-group/Organisation/COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND PSYCHOLOGYen
pubs.organisational-group/Organisation/COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND PSYCHOLOGY/School of Medicineen
pubs.organisational-group/Organisation/COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND PSYCHOLOGY/School of Medicine/Department of Health Sciencesen
dc.dateaccepted2015-09-08-
Appears in Collections:Published Articles, Dept. of Health Sciences

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Dot comparison protocols_FinalCopywFigures.docxPost-review (final submitted)918.68 kBUnknownView/Open
Dot comparison protocols_FinalCopywFigures.pdfPost-review (final submitted)1.74 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.