2018
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4329
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The role of awareness of repetition during the development of automaticity in a dot-counting task

Abstract: This study examined whether being aware of the repetition of stimuli in a simple numerosity task could aid the development of automaticity. The numerosity task used in this study was a simple counting task. Thirty-four participants were divided into two groups. One group was instructed that the stimuli would repeat many times throughout the experiment. The results showed no significant differences in the way automatic processing developed between the groups. Similarly, there was no correlation between the poin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the RAT does include a set of moderately difficult "control" items (McFarlin & Blascovich, 1984), there was concern that merely completing the task would influence participants' perceptions of competence. Thus, for the neutral condition, participants completed a dot counting task where they were instructed to count and enter the number of dots they saw on the computer screen (Speelman & Shadbolt, 2018). They received 10 sets of randomly placed dots and were not given any information regarding their performance.…”
Section: Measures and Manipulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although the RAT does include a set of moderately difficult "control" items (McFarlin & Blascovich, 1984), there was concern that merely completing the task would influence participants' perceptions of competence. Thus, for the neutral condition, participants completed a dot counting task where they were instructed to count and enter the number of dots they saw on the computer screen (Speelman & Shadbolt, 2018). They received 10 sets of randomly placed dots and were not given any information regarding their performance.…”
Section: Measures and Manipulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They received 10 sets of randomly placed dots and were not given any information regarding their performance. Similar to other counting tasks (e.g., Marsh, Bink, & Hicks, 1999;Swift & Peterson, 2018;Speelman & Shadbolt, 2018), this task was not intended to be particularly competence-frustrating or competence-satisfying. All competence satisfaction manipulation tasks can be found in Appendix B.…”
Section: Measures and Manipulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%