Reports an error in "Sex differences in the spatial representation of number" by Rebecca Bull, Alexandra A. Cleland and Thomas Mitchell (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2013[Feb], Vol 142[1], 181-192). In the article, there was an error in the Results section of Experiment 2. The t value incorrectly repeated the beta weight ( .25). The correct value is t(39) = 3.38, p = .002. There was also an error in the Discussion section of Experiment 2. The reported result of F(1, 94) = 4.27, should read F(1, 94) = 4.72, p = .032. Finally, there was an error in the Results section of Experiment 4. The t value for was incorrectly reported as t(50) = 1.56, p = .05. It should be t(50) = 1.98. These typographical errors do not change the overall pattern of results or interpretation of the findings. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2012-10822-001.) There is a large body of accumulated evidence from behavioral and neuroimaging studies regarding how and where in the brain we represent basic numerical information. A number of these studies have considered how numerical representations may differ between individuals according to their age or level of mathematical ability, but one issue rarely considered is whether the representational acuity or automaticity of using numerical representations differs between the sexes. We report 4 studies that suggest that male participants show a stronger influence of the spatial representation of number as revealed through the spatial numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect, through the numerical distance effect (NDE), and through number-line estimations. Evidence for a sex difference in processing number was present for parity decisions (Experiment 1), color decisions (Experiment 2), number-line estimations (Experiment 3), and magnitude decisions (Experiment 4). We argue that this pattern of results reflects a sex difference in either the acuity of representation or reliance upon spatial representations of number, and that this difference may arise due to differences in the parietal lobes of men and women. (PsycINFO Database Record

中文翻译：

---

“数字的空间表示中的性别差异”：对Bull等人的更正。（2013）。

丽贝卡·布尔（Rebecca Bull），亚历山德拉·克莱兰（Alexandra A. Cleland）和托马斯·米切尔（Thomas Mitchell）报告了“数字的空间表达中的性别差异”中的错误（实验心理学杂志：概述，2013年2月，第142卷第1期，第181-192页）。在本文中，实验2的“结果”部分存在错误。t值错误地重复了beta权重（.25）。正确值为t（39）= 3.38，p = .002。实验2的“讨论”部分中也存在错误。报告的F（1，94）= 4.27，应读为F（1，94）= 4.72，p = .032。最后，实验4的“结果”部分出现了错误。的t值错误地报告为t（50）= 1.56，p = .05。它应该是t（50）= 1.98。这些印刷错误不会改变结果的整体模式或对结果的解释。（原始文章的以下摘要出现在记录2012-10822-001中。）行为和神经影像学研究收集了大量的证据，这些证据涉及我们在大脑中如何以及在何处表示基本数字信息。这些研究中的许多研究都考虑了根据年龄或数学能力水平，个体之间的数字表示方式可能会有所不同，但是很少考虑的一个问题是性别表示方式的使用敏锐度或自动性是否有所不同。我们报告了4项研究，这些研究表明，男性参与者通过响应码的空间数字关联（SNARC）效应，数字距离效应（NDE）和数字线估计显示出对数字空间表示的更强影响。对于平价决策（实验1），颜色决策（实验2），数字线估计（实验3）和幅度决策（实验4），存在处理编号性别差异的证据。我们认为，这种结果模式反映了无论是表象敏锐度还是对数字空间表象的依赖，都存在性别差异，并且这种差异可能是由于男女顶叶的差异引起的。（PsycINFO数据库记录 并且这种差异可能是由于男女的顶叶不同而引起的。（PsycINFO数据库记录 并且这种差异可能是由于男女的顶叶不同而引起的。（PsycINFO数据库记录