Simple subtraction in adults relies heavily on strategy use, which disadvantages participants under limited working memory resources¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Reported strategy use jumped from an average of 3% on small subtraction problems to 33% on large problems, matching RT and error profiles. → Mark H. Ashcraft and Jeremy A. Krause 2007 q3 i? A dual letter-recall task significantly reduced letter recall accuracy, with the largest interference for low-working-memory-span participants. → Mark H. Ashcraft and Jeremy A. Krause 2007 (2)

Evidence¶

Mark H. Ashcraft and Jeremy A. Krause 2007¶

Mark H. Ashcraft and Jeremy A. Krause. (2007). Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 243-248. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194059

q3 · i? · review · r2

College adults solved basic subtraction facts; after each trial they answered "How did you solve the problem?". Reported "strategy use was reported an average of 3% of the time on small subtraction problems, but on 33% of the trials with large problems", matching RT and error profiles.

"strategy use was reported an average of 3% of the time on small subtraction problems, but on 33% of the trials with large problems"

Mark H. Ashcraft and Jeremy A. Krause 2007 (2)¶

Mark H. Ashcraft and Jeremy A. Krause. (2007). Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 243-248. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194059

q3 · i? · review · r2

In the dual-task experiment, participants held two, four, or six random letters while performing subtraction, then reported the letters in serial order. "There was substantially more interference with letter recall for the low-working-memory-span participants (a 56% error rate in the most difficult condition)".

"There was substantially more interference with letter recall for the low-working-memory-span participants (a 56% error rate in the most difficult condition) than for the medium- or high-span groups (respectively, 46% and 31% error rates"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Adults with dyslexia are slower than controls on single-digit arithmetic, with a larger multiplication-minus-subtraction reaction-time difference, even after controlling digit identification speed — related
• Adults with developmental dyslexia use arithmetic fact retrieval less frequently than matched controls during single-digit multiplication and subtraction — related
• Adults with DD rely on time-consuming back-up strategies like finger usage for single-digit arithmetic, with prolonged response latencies that appear number-specific — related
• The advantage of a large working-memory span on children's arithmetic strategy use decreases across grades: span predicts retrieval frequency in second grade only and retrieval efficiency in second and fourth grade only — related
• Working memory demand increases with the complexity of arithmetic and math problems, including operand size and number of solution steps — a broader claim this one bears on