scholarly journals Developmental Change of Approximate Number System Acuity (Keenness) Reveals Delay

Author(s):  
Tayyaba Abid ◽  
Saeeda Khanum

The ability to process numbers approximately also called, approximate number system (ANS) is related and predictive of school mathematics performance. This system is functional since birth and continue to become more precise throughout the development. Developmental change of approximate number system over the growing years has not been investigated in Pakistan so the current study bridged this gap by investigating it from 261 participants ranging from 5 to 72 years of age. Panamath task being the robust measure of ANS acuity was administered. Results revealed that numerical acuity got precise with an increase in age. However, most sophisticated acuity has been shown around age 46-50 as compared to the western population showing its peak around 30 years of age. Delay in developing approximate number system acuity across the groups as compared to the trend reported in the western population raises many questions in terms of cultural variations and practices contributing to the development of number sense. The study has important implications for the development of number sense cross-culturally keeping in view the evidence from various cultures.

PLoS ONE ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. e23749 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michèle M. M. Mazzocco ◽  
Lisa Feigenson ◽  
Justin Halberda

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Luis Bermúdez

Abstract Against Clarke and Beck's proposal that the approximate number system (ANS) represents natural and rational numbers, I suggest that the experimental evidence is better accommodated by the (much weaker) thesis that the ANS represents cardinality comparisons. Cardinality comparisons do not stand in arithmetical relations and being able to apply them does not involve basic arithmetical concepts and operations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max Jones ◽  
Karim Zahidi ◽  
Daniel D. Hutto

Abstract Clarke and Beck rightly contend that the number sense allows us to directly perceive number. However, they unnecessarily assume a representationalist approach and incur a heavy theoretical cost by invoking “modes of presentation.” We suggest that the relevant evidence is better explained by adopting a radical enactivist approach that avoids characterizing the approximate number system (ANS) as a system for representing number.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. e0258886
Author(s):  
Antonya Marie Gonzalez ◽  
Darko Odic ◽  
Toni Schmader ◽  
Katharina Block ◽  
Andrew Scott Baron

Despite the global importance of science, engineering, and math-related fields, women are consistently underrepresented in these areas. One source of this disparity is likely the prevalence of gender stereotypes that constrain girls’ and women’s math performance and interest. The current research explores the developmental roots of these effects by examining the impact of stereotypes on young girls’ intuitive number sense, a universal skill that predicts later math ability. Across four studies, 762 children ages 3–6 were presented with a task measuring their Approximate Number System accuracy. Instructions given before the task varied by condition. In the two control conditions, the task was described to children either as a game or a test of eyesight ability. In the experimental condition, the task was described as a test of math ability and that researchers were interested in whether boys or girls were better at math and counting. Separately, we measured children’s explicit beliefs about math and gender. Results conducted on the combined dataset indicated that while only a small number of girls in the sample had stereotypes associating math with boys, these girls performed significantly worse on a test of Approximate Number System accuracy when it was framed as a math test rather than a game or an eyesight test. These results provide novel evidence that for young girls who do endorse stereotypes about math and gender, contextual activation of these stereotypes may impair their intuitive number sense, potentially affecting their acquisition of formal mathematics concepts and developing interest in math-related fields.


2021 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Clarke ◽  
Jacob Beck

Abstract In our target article, we argued that the number sense represents natural and rational numbers. Here, we respond to the 26 commentaries we received, highlighting new directions for empirical and theoretical research. We discuss two background assumptions, arguments against the number sense, whether the approximate number system (ANS) represents numbers or numerosities, and why the ANS represents rational (but not irrational) numbers.


2017 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Inglis ◽  
Sophie Batchelor ◽  
Camilla Gilmore ◽  
Derrick G. Watson

AbstractLeibovich et al. argue persuasively that researchers should not assume that approximate number system (ANS) tasks harness an innate sense of number. However, some studies have reported a causal link between ANS tasks and mathematics performance, implicating the ANS in the development of numerical skills. Here we report a p-curve analysis, which indicates that these experimental studies do not contain evidential value.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-57
Author(s):  
Sam Clarke ◽  
Jacob Beck

Abstract On a now orthodox view, humans and many other animals possess a “number sense,” or approximate number system (ANS), that represents number. Recently, this orthodox view has been subject to numerous critiques that question whether the ANS genuinely represents number. We distinguish three lines of critique—the arguments from congruency, confounds, and imprecision—and show that none succeed. We then provide positive reasons to think that the ANS genuinely represents numbers, and not just non-numerical confounds or exotic substitutes for number, such as “numerosities” or “quanticals,” as critics propose. In so doing, we raise a neglected question: numbers of what kind? Proponents of the orthodox view have been remarkably coy on this issue. But this is unsatisfactory since the predictions of the orthodox view, including the situations in which the ANS is expected to succeed or fail, turn on the kind(s) of number being represented. In response, we propose that the ANS represents not only natural numbers (e.g. 7), but also non-natural rational numbers (e.g. 3.5). It does not represent irrational numbers (e.g. √2), however, and thereby fails to represent the real numbers more generally. This distances our proposal from existing conjectures, refines our understanding of the ANS, and paves the way for future research.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 304-321
Author(s):  
Mila Marinova ◽  
Bert Reynvoet

Theories of number development have traditionally argued that the acquisition and discrimination of symbolic numbers (i.e., number words and digits) are grounded in and are continuously supported by the Approximate Number System (ANS)—an evolutionarily ancient system for number. In the current study, we challenge this claim by investigating whether the ANS continues to support the symbolic number processing throughout development. To this end, we tested 87 first- (Age M = 6.54 years, SD = 0.58), third- (Age M = 8.55 years, SD = 0.60) and fifth-graders (Age M = 10.63 years, SD = 0.67) on four audio-visual comparison tasks (1) Number words–Digits, (2) Tones–Dots, (3) Number words–Dots, (4) Tones–Digits, while varying the Number Range (Small and Large), and the Numerical Ratio (Easy, Medium, and Hard). Results showed that larger and faster developmental growth in the performance was observed in the Number Words–Digits task, while the tasks containing at least one non-symbolic quantity showed smaller and slower developmental change. In addition, the Ratio effect (i.e., the signature of ANS being addressed) was present in the Tones–Dots, Tones–Digits, and Number Words–Dots tasks, but was absent in the Number Words–Digits task. These findings suggest that it is unlikely that the ANS continuously underlines the acquisition and the discrimination of the symbolic numbers. Rather, our results indicate that non-symbolic quantities and symbolic numbers follow qualitatively distinct developmental paths, and argue that the latter ones are processed in a semantic network which starts to emerge from an early age.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document