Mishra A, Redkar M, Khan A
Psychol Res. 2024; 89(1):7.
PMID: 39532732
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-024-02055-3.
Dolfi S, Testolin A, Cutini S, Zorzi M
Behav Res Methods. 2024; 56(7):7561-7573.
PMID: 38750387
PMC: 11362239.
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-024-02436-x.
Knobel S, Lautenbach F
Front Psychol. 2023; 13:1026017.
PMID: 36817381
PMC: 9936861.
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1026017.
Castaldi E, Piazza M, Eger E
Front Hum Neurosci. 2021; 15:751098.
PMID: 34867244
PMC: 8634845.
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.751098.
Cheyette S, Piantadosi S
Nat Hum Behav. 2020; 4(12):1265-1272.
PMID: 32929205
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-00946-0.
Number and Continuous Magnitude Processing Depends on Task Goals and Numerosity Ratio.
Leibovich-Raveh T, Stein I, Henik A, Salti M
J Cogn. 2019; 1(1):19.
PMID: 31517193
PMC: 6634598.
DOI: 10.5334/joc.22.
A primarily serial, foveal accumulator underlies approximate numerical estimation.
Cheyette S, Piantadosi S
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019; 116(36):17729-17734.
PMID: 31427541
PMC: 6731650.
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1819956116.
Set size influences the relationship between ANS acuity and math performance: a result of different strategies?.
Dietrich J, Nuerk H, Klein E, Moeller K, Huber S
Psychol Res. 2017; 83(3):590-612.
PMID: 28852848
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-017-0907-1.
Congruency effects in dot comparison tasks: convex hull is more important than dot area.
Gilmore C, Cragg L, Hogan G, Inglis M
J Cogn Psychol (Hove). 2017; 28(8):923-931.
PMID: 28163886
PMC: 5213839.
DOI: 10.1080/20445911.2016.1221828.
A Systematic Investigation of Accuracy and Response Time Based Measures Used to Index ANS Acuity.
Dietrich J, Huber S, Klein E, Willmes K, Pixner S, Moeller K
PLoS One. 2016; 11(9):e0163076.
PMID: 27637109
PMC: 5026358.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163076.
Dot Display Affects Approximate Number System Acuity and Relationships with Mathematical Achievement and Inhibitory Control.
Norris J, Castronovo J
PLoS One. 2016; 11(5):e0155543.
PMID: 27195749
PMC: 4873147.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155543.
Effects of Presentation Type and Visual Control in Numerosity Discrimination: Implications for Number Processing?.
Smets K, Moors P, Reynvoet B
Front Psychol. 2016; 7:66.
PMID: 26869967
PMC: 4734174.
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00066.
The influence of math anxiety on symbolic and non-symbolic magnitude processing.
Dietrich J, Huber S, Moeller K, Klein E
Front Psychol. 2015; 6:1621.
PMID: 26579012
PMC: 4621307.
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01621.
Modeling the approximate number system to quantify the contribution of visual stimulus features.
DeWind N, Adams G, Platt M, Brannon E
Cognition. 2015; 142:247-65.
PMID: 26056747
PMC: 4831213.
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.016.
Methodological aspects to be considered when measuring the approximate number system (ANS) - a research review.
Dietrich J, Huber S, Nuerk H
Front Psychol. 2015; 6:295.
PMID: 25852612
PMC: 4362052.
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00295.
Assessing the Approximate Number System: no relation between numerical comparison and estimation tasks.
Guillaume M, Gevers W, Content A
Psychol Res. 2015; 80(2):248-58.
PMID: 25742706
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-015-0657-x.
Stochastic accumulation of feature information in perception and memory.
Kent C, Guest D, Adelman J, Lamberts K
Front Psychol. 2014; 5:412.
PMID: 24860530
PMC: 4026707.
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00412.