Literature DB >> 28357626

Reasoning strategies with rational numbers revealed by eye tracking.

Patrick Plummer1, Melissa DeWolf2, Miriam Bassok3, Peter C Gordon4, Keith J Holyoak2.   

Abstract

Recent research has begun to investigate the impact of different formats for rational numbers on the processes by which people make relational judgments about quantitative relations. DeWolf, Bassok, and Holyoak (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 127-150, 2015) found that accuracy on a relation identification task was highest when fractions were presented with countable sets, whereas accuracy was relatively low for all conditions where decimals were presented. However, it is unclear what processing strategies underlie these disparities in accuracy. We report an experiment that used eye-tracking methods to externalize the strategies that are evoked by different types of rational numbers for different types of quantities (discrete vs. continuous). Results showed that eye-movement behavior during the task was jointly determined by image and number format. Discrete images elicited a counting strategy for both fractions and decimals, but this strategy led to higher accuracy only for fractions. Continuous images encouraged magnitude estimation and comparison, but to a greater degree for decimals than fractions. This strategy led to decreased accuracy for both number formats. By analyzing participants' eye movements when they viewed a relational context and made decisions, we were able to obtain an externalized representation of the strategic choices evoked by different ontological types of entities and different types of rational numbers. Our findings using eye-tracking measures enable us to go beyond previous studies based on accuracy data alone, demonstrating that quantitative properties of images and the different formats for rational numbers jointly influence strategies that generate eye-movement behavior.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cognitive; Eye movements; Eye movements and visual attention

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28357626     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-017-1312-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  2 in total

Review 1.  The problem with percentages.

Authors:  Jennifer A Jacobs Danan; Rochel Gelman
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-02-19       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  From Non-symbolic to Symbolic Proportions and Back: A Cuisenaire Rod Proportional Reasoning Intervention Enhances Continuous Proportional Reasoning Skills.

Authors:  Roberto A Abreu-Mendoza; Linsah Coulanges; Kendell Ali; Arthur B Powell; Miriam Rosenberg-Lee
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-05-21
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.