Loughborough University
Leicestershire, UK
LE11 3TU
+44 (0)1509 263171
Loughborough University

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/19152

Title: Dot comparison stimuli are not all alike: the effect of different visual controls on ANS measurement
Authors: Clayton, Sarah
Gilmore, Camilla K.
Inglis, Matthew
Keywords: Dot comparison
Approximate number system
Nonsymbolic magnitude comparison
Visual cues
Congruency effects
Numerical cognition
Issue Date: 2015
Publisher: © Elsevier
Citation: CLAYTON, S., GILMORE, C.K. and INGLIS, M., 2015. Dot comparison stimuli are not all alike: the effect of different visual controls on ANS measurement. Acta Psychologica, 161, pp. 177 - 184.
Abstract: The 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.
Description: This paper is embargoed until March 2017.
Version: Accepted for publication
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.09.007
URI: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/19152
Publisher Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.09.007
ISSN: 1873-6297
Appears in Collections:Closed Access (Mathematics Education Centre)

Files associated with this item:

File Description SizeFormat
Dot comparison protocols_FinalCopy_withImages.pdfAccepted version427.21 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


SFX Query

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