Operator priming and generalization of practice in adults’ simple arithmetic.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a renewed debate about whether educated adults solve simple addition problems (e.g., 2 + 3) by direct fact retrieval or by fast, automatic counting-based procedures. Recent research testing adults' simple addition and multiplication showed that a 150-ms preview of the operator (+ or ×) facilitated addition, but not multiplication, suggesting that a general addition procedure was primed by the + sign. In Experiment 1 (n = 36), we applied this operator-priming paradigm to rule-based problems (0 + N = N, 1 × N = N, 0 × N = 0) and 1 + N problems with N ranging from 0 to 9. For the rule-based problems, we found both operator-preview facilitation and generalization of practice (e.g., practicing 0 + 3 sped up unpracticed 0 + 8), the latter being a signature of procedure use; however, we also found operator-preview facilitation for 1 + N in the absence of generalization, which implies the 1 + N problems were solved by fact retrieval but nonetheless were facilitated by an operator preview. Thus, the operator preview effect does not discriminate procedure use from fact retrieval. Experiment 2 (n = 36) investigated whether a population with advanced mathematical training-engineering and computer science students-would show generalization of practice for nonrule-based simple addition problems (e.g., 1 + 4, 4 + 7). The 0 + N problems again presented generalization, whereas no nonzero problem type did; but all nonzero problems sped up when the identical problems were retested, as predicted by item-specific fact retrieval. The results pose a strong challenge to the generality of the proposal that skilled adults' simple addition is based on fast procedural algorithms, and instead support a fact-retrieval model of fast addition performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".