The relationship between problem size and fixation patterns during addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eye-tracking methods have only rarely been used to examine the online cognitive processing that occurs during mental arithmetic on simple arithmetic problems, that is, addition and multiplication problems with single-digit operands (e.g., operands 2 through 9; 2 + 3, 6 x 8) and the inverse subtraction and division problems (e.g., 5 – 3; 48 ÷ 6). Participants (N = 109) solved arithmetic problems from one of the four operations while their eye movements were recorded. We found three unique fixation patterns. During addition and multiplication, participants allocated half of their fixations to the operator and one-quarter to each operand, independent of problem size. The pattern was similar on small subtraction and division problems. However, on large subtraction problems, fixations were distributed approximately evenly across the three stimulus components. On large division problems, over half of the fixations occurred on the left operand, with the rest distributed between the operation sign and the right operand. We discuss the relations between these eye tracking patterns and other research on the differences in processing across arithmetic operations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".