scholarly journals Neural coding partially accounts for the relation between children’s number line estimation and numerical comparison performance

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Prather
Keyword(s):  
Neural Coding ◽  
Standardized Test ◽  
Number System ◽  
Number Line ◽  
Standardized Test Scores ◽  
Numerical Comparison ◽  
Comparison Task ◽  
Mathematics Interventions ◽  
Number Line Estimation ◽  
Number Perception

Numerical comparison is a primary measure of the acuity of children’s approximate number system (ANS). ANS acuity is associated with key developmental outcomes such as symbolic number skill, standardized test scores and even employment outcomes(Halberda, Mazzocco, & Feigenson, 2008; Parsons & Bynner, 1997). We examine the relation between children’s performance on the numerical comparison task and the number line estimation task. It is important to characterize the relation between tasks in order to develop mathematics interventions that lead to transfer across tasks. We find that number line performance is significantly predicted by non-symbolic comparison performance for participants ranging in age from 5 to 8 years. We also evaluate, using a computational model, if the relation between the two tasks can be adequately explained based on known neural correlates of number perception. Data from humans and non-human primates characterizes neural activity corresponding to the perception of numerosities. Results of behavioral experimentation and computational modeling suggest that though neural coding of number predicts a correlation in participants’ performance on the two tasks, it cannot account for all of the variability in the human data. This is interpreted as consistent with accounts of number line estimation in which number line estimation does not rely solely on participants’ numerical perception.

scholarly journals How the Abstract Becomes Concrete: Irrational Numbers are Understood Relative to Natural Numbers and Perfect Squares

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Purav Patel
Keyword(s):  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Number System ◽  
Number Line ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Comparison Task ◽  
Irrational Numbers ◽  
Magnitude Comparison ◽  
Number Systems ◽  
Number Line Estimation ◽  
Perfect Squares

Mathematical cognition research has largely emphasized concepts that can be directly perceived or grounded in visuospatial referents. These include concrete number systems like natural numbers, integers, and rational numbers. Here, we investigate how a more abstract number system, the irrationals denoted by radical expressions like the square root of 2, is understood across three tasks. Performance on a magnitude comparison task suggests that people interpret irrational numbers – specifically, the radicands of radical expressions – as natural numbers. Strategy self-reports during a number line estimation task reveal that the spatial locations of irrationals are determined by referencing neighboring perfect squares. Finally, perfect squares facilitate the evaluation of arithmetic expressions. These converging results align with a constellation of related phenomena spanning tasks and number systems of varying complexity. Accordingly, we propose that the task-specific recruitment of more concrete representations to make sense of more abstract concepts (referential processing) is an important mechanism for teaching and learning mathematics.

scholarly journals Quantitative and qualitative differences in the canonical and the reverse distance effect and their selective association with arithmetic and mathematical competencies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Vogel ◽  
Thomas J. Faulkenberry ◽  
Roland H. Grabner
Keyword(s):  
Standardized Test ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Distance Effect ◽  
Numerical Magnitude ◽  
Numerical Comparison ◽  
Central Research ◽  
Comparison Task ◽  
Mathematical Competencies ◽  
Numerical Order ◽  
Underlying Mechanisms

Understanding the relationship between symbolic numerical abilities and individual differences in mathematical competencies has become a central research endeavor in the last years. Evidence on this foundational relationship is often based on two behavioral signatures of numerical magnitude and numerical order processing: the canonical and the reverse distance effect. The former indicates faster reaction times for the comparison of numerals that are far in distance (e.g., 2 8) compared to numerals that are close in distance (e.g., 2 3). The latter indicates faster reaction times for the ordinal judgment of numerals (i.e., are numerals in ascending/descending order) that are close in distance (e.g., 2 3 4) compared to numerals that are far in distance (e.g., 2 4 6). While a substantial body of literature has reported consistent associations between the canonical distance effect and arithmetic abilities, rather inconsistent findings have been found for the reverse distance effect. Here, we tested the hypothesis that estimates of the reverse distance effect show qualitative differences (i.e., not all participants show a reverse distance effect in the expected direction) rather than quantitative differences (i.e., all individuals show a reverse distance effect, but to a different degree), and that inconsistent findings might be a consequence of this variation. We analyzed data from 397 adults who performed a computerized numerical comparison task, a computerized numerical order verification task (i.e., are three numerals presented in order or not), a paper pencil test of arithmetic fluency, as well as a standardized test to assess more complex forms of mathematical competencies. We found discriminatory evidence for the two distance effects. While estimates of the canonical distance effect showed quantitative differences, estimates of the reverse distance effect showed qualitative differences. Comparisons between individuals who demonstrated an effect and individuals who demonstrated no reverse distance effect confirmed a significant moderation on the correlation with mathematical abilities. Significantly larger effects were found in the group who showed an effect. These findings confirm that estimates of the reverse distance effect are subject to qualitative differences and that we need to better characterize the underlying mechanisms/strategies that might lead to these qualitative differences.

scholarly journals Number line estimation and standardized test performance: The left digit effect does not predict SAT math score

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Williams ◽  
Joanna Paul ◽  
Alexandra Zax ◽  
Hilary Barth ◽  
Andrea L. Patalano
Keyword(s):  
Test Performance ◽  
Standardized Test ◽  
Number Line ◽  
Number Line Estimation ◽  
Standardized Test Performance ◽  
Math Score

scholarly journals Quantitative and Qualitative Differences in the Canonical and the Reverse Distance Effect and Their Selective Association With Arithmetic and Mathematical Competencies

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan E. Vogel ◽  
Thomas J. Faulkenberry ◽  
Roland H. Grabner
Keyword(s):  
Standardized Test ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Distance Effect ◽  
Numerical Magnitude ◽  
Numerical Comparison ◽  
Central Research ◽  
Comparison Task ◽  
Mathematical Competencies ◽  
Numerical Order ◽  
Underlying Mechanisms

Understanding the relationship between symbolic numerical abilities and individual differences in mathematical competencies has become a central research endeavor in the last years. Evidence on this foundational relationship is often based on two behavioral signatures of numerical magnitude and numerical order processing: the canonical and the reverse distance effect. The former indicates faster reaction times for the comparison of numerals that are far in distance (e.g., 2 8) compared to numerals that are close in distance (e.g., 2 3). The latter indicates faster reaction times for the ordinal judgment of numerals (i.e., are numerals in ascending/descending order) that are close in distance (e.g., 2 3 4) compared to numerals that are far in distance (e.g., 2 4 6). While a substantial body of literature has reported consistent associations between the canonical distance effect and arithmetic abilities, rather inconsistent findings have been found for the reverse distance effect. Here, we tested the hypothesis that estimates of the reverse distance effect show qualitative differences (i.e., not all participants show a reverse distance effect in the expected direction) rather than quantitative differences (i.e., all individuals show a reverse distance effect, but to a different degree), and that inconsistent findings might be a consequence of this variation. We analyzed data from 397 adults who performed a computerized numerical comparison task, a computerized numerical order verification task (i.e., are three numerals presented in order or not), a paper pencil test of arithmetic fluency, as well as a standardized test to assess more complex forms of mathematical competencies. We found discriminatory evidence for the two distance effects. While estimates of the canonical distance effect showed quantitative differences, estimates of the reverse distance effect showed qualitative differences. Comparisons between individuals who demonstrated an effect and individuals who demonstrated no reverse distance effect confirmed a significant moderation on the correlation with mathematical abilities. Significantly larger effects were found in the group who showed an effect. These findings confirm that estimates of the reverse distance effect are subject to qualitative differences and that we need to better characterize the underlying mechanisms/strategies that might lead to these qualitative differences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document