Numerical Magnitude Processing in Deaf Adolescents and Its Contribution to Arithmetical Ability

Although most deaf individuals could use sign language or sign/spoken language mix, hearing loss would still affect their language acquisition. Compensatory plasticity holds that the lack of auditory stimulation experienced by deaf individuals, such as congenital deafness, can be met by enhancements in visual cognition. And the studies of hearing individuals have showed that visual form perception is the cognitive mechanism that could explain the association between numerical magnitude processing and arithmetic computation. Therefore, we examined numerical magnitude processing and its contribution to arithmetical ability in deaf adolescents, and explored the differences between the congenital and acquired deafness. 112 deaf adolescents (58 congenital deafness) and 58 hearing adolescents performed a series of cognitive and mathematical tests, and it was found there was no significant differences between the congenital group and the hearing group, but congenital group outperformed acquired group in numerical magnitude processing (reaction time) and arithmetic computation. It was also found there was a close association between numerical magnitude processing and arithmetic computation in all deaf adolescents, and after controlling for the demographic variables (age, gender, onset of hearing loss) and general cognitive abilities (non-verbal IQ, processing speed, reading comprehension), numerical magnitude processing could predict arithmetic computation in all deaf adolescents but not in congenital group. The role of numerical magnitude processing (symbolic and non-symbolic) in deaf adolescents' mathematical performance should be paid attention in the training of arithmetical ability.

Arithmetic computation with probability words and numbers

Probability information is regularly communicated to experts who must fuse multiple estimates to support decision-making. Such information is often communicated verbally (e.g., “likely”) rather than with precise numeric (point) values (e.g., “.75”), yet people are not taught to perform arithmetic on verbal probabilities. We hypothesized that the accuracy and logical coherence of averaging and multiplying probabilities will be poorer when individuals receive probability information in verbal rather than numerical point format. In four experiments (N = 213, 201, 26, and 343, respectively), we manipulated probability communication format between-subjects. Participants averaged and multiplied sets of four probabilities. Across experiments, arithmetic accuracy and coherence was significantly better with point than with verbal probabilities. These findings generalized between expert (intelligence analysts) and non-expert samples and when controlling for calculator use. Experiment 4 revealed an important qualification: whereas accuracy and coherence were better among participants presented with point probabilities than with verbal probabilities, imprecise numeric probability ranges (e.g., “.70 to .80”) afforded no computational advantage over verbal probabilities. Experiment 4 also revealed that the advantage of the point over the verbal format is partially mediated by strategy use. Participants presented with point estimates are more likely to use mental computation than guesswork, and mental computation was found to be associated with better accuracy. Our findings suggest that where computation is important, probability information should be communicated to end users with precise numeric probabilities.