Fixated in more familiar territory: Providing an explicit midpoint for typical and atypical number lines

Abstract

Does providing an explicit midpoint affect adults’ performance differently for typical and atypical number line tasks? Participants (N = 29) estimated the location of target numbers on typical (i.e., 0–10,000) and atypical (i.e., 0–7,000) number lines with either an explicitly labelled midpoint or no midpoint. For the typical number line, estimation accuracy did not differ for the explicit- and implicit-midpoint conditions. For the atypical number line, participants in the explicit-midpoint condition were more accurate than those in the implicit-midpoint condition and their pattern of error was similar to that seen for typical number lines (i.e., M-shaped). In contrast, for participants in the implicit-midpoint condition, the pattern of error on the atypical line was tent-shaped, with less accurate estimates around the midpoint and quartiles than the endpoints. Eye-tracking data showed that, for all number lines, participants used the middle of the line to guide their estimates, but participants in the explicit-midpoint condition were more likely to make their first fixation around the true midpoint than those in the implicit–midpoint condition. We conclude that adults have difficulty in estimating on atypical number lines because they incorrectly calculate the numerical value of the midpoint.