The structure of the notation system in adults' number line estimation: An eye-tracking study

Research on rational numbers suggests that adults experience more difficulties in understanding the numerical magnitude of rational than natural numbers. Within rational numbers, the numerical magnitude of fractions has been found to be more difficult to understand than that of decimals. Using a number line estimation (NLE) task, the current study investigated two sources of difficulty in adults' numerical magnitude understanding: number type (natural vs. rational) and structure of the notation system (place-value-based vs. non-place-value-based). This within-subjects design led to four conditions: natural numbers (natural/place-value-based), decimals (rational/place-value-based), fractions (rational/non-place-value-based), and separated fractions (natural/non-place-value-based). In addition to percentage absolute error (PAE) and response times, we collected eye-tracking data. Results showed that participants estimated natural and place-value-based notations more accurately than rational and non-place-value-based notations, respectively. Participants were also slower to respond to fractions compared to the three other notations. Consistent with the response time data, eye-tracking data showed that participants spent more time encoding fractions and revisited them more often than the other notations. Moreover, in general, participants spent more time positioning non-place-value-based than place-value-based notations on the number line. Overall, the present study contends that when both sources of difficulty are present in a notation (i.e., both rational and non-place-value-based), adults understand its numerical magnitude less well than when there is only one source of difficulty present (i.e., either rational or non-place-value-based). When no sources of difficulty are present in a notation (i.e., both natural and place-value-based), adults have the strongest understanding of its numerical magnitud