scholarly journals Disentangling the Mechanisms of Symbolic Number Processing in Adults’ Mathematics and Arithmetic Achievement

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Josetxu Orrantia ◽  
David Muñez ◽  
Laura Matilla ◽  
Rosario Sanchez ◽  
Sara San Romualdo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Number Processing ◽  
Symbolic Number

The Approximate Number System is not Predictive for Symbolic Number Processing in Kindergarteners

2014 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Delphine Sasanguie ◽  
Emmy Defever ◽  
Bieke Maertens ◽  
Bert Reynvoet
Keyword(s):  
Number System ◽  
Number Processing ◽  
Approximate Number System ◽  
Symbolic Number

scholarly journals Symbols are special: An fMRI adaptation study of symbolic, nonsymbolic and non-numerical magnitude processing in the human brain

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Moriah Sokolowski ◽  
Zachary Hawes ◽  
Lien Peters ◽  
Daniel Ansari
Keyword(s):  
Human Brain ◽  
Processing System ◽  
Number Processing ◽  
Numerical Magnitude ◽  
Physical Size ◽  
Parietal Lobes ◽  
Magnitude Processing ◽  
The Right ◽  
Fmri Adaptation ◽  
Symbolic Number

Humans have the unique ability to represent and manipulate symbols. It is widely believed that this ability is rooted in an evolutionarily ancient system used to process nonsymbolic quantities in the human brain. In the current study, we used an fMRI adaptation paradigm to isolate the representations of symbols, quantities, and physical size in forty-five human adults. Results indicate that the neural correlates supporting symbolic number processing are entirely distinct from those supporting nonsymbolic magnitude processing. At the univariate level, symbolic number processing is associated with activation in the left inferior parietal lobule, whereas the processing of nonsymbolic magnitudes (both quantity and physical size), relates to activation in the right intraparietal sulcus. At the multivariate level, normalized patterns of activation for symbolic number processing exhibit a dissimilar pattern of activation compared to nonsymbolic magnitude processing in both the left and right parietal lobes. Additionally, the patterns of activation that associate with quantity and physical size are practically indistinguishable from one another. These findings challenge the longstanding belief that the culturally acquired ability to conceptualize symbolic numbers is rooted in an evolutionarily ancient system for nonsymbolic magnitude processing. Moreover, these data reveal that the system used to process nonsymbolic numbers may actually be a general magnitude processing system used to process numerical and non-numerical magnitudes. These findings highlight the need for the field to shift away from exploring how symbols are grounded in analog nonsymbolic representations, and toward more complex questions related to the neural consequences of learning symbolic numbers.

Symbolic and non-symbolic number processing: an fMRI study

NeuroImage ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 459
Author(s):  
M. Piazza ◽  
C.J. Price ◽  
A. Mechelli ◽  
B. Butterworth
Keyword(s):  
Number Processing ◽  
Fmri Study ◽  
Symbolic Number

scholarly journals Symbolic and non-symbolic number processing in children with developmental dyslexia

2017 ◽  
Vol 56 ◽  
pp. 105-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulf Träff ◽  
Annemie Desoete ◽  
Maria Chiara Passolunghi
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Dyslexia ◽  
Number Processing ◽  
Symbolic Number

Neural Correlates of Symbolic Number Comparison in Developmental Dyscalculia

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 860-874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Mussolin ◽  
Anne De Volder ◽  
Cécile Grandin ◽  
Xavier Schlögel ◽  
Marie-Cécile Nassogne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Number Processing ◽  
Numerical Distance ◽  
Comparison Task ◽  
Developmental Dyscalculia ◽  
Disability History ◽  
Magnitude Processing ◽  
Number Magnitude ◽  
Number Comparison ◽  
The Right ◽  
Symbolic Number

Developmental dyscalculia (DD) is a deficit in number processing and arithmetic that affects 3–6% of schoolchildren. The goal of the present study was to analyze cerebral bases of DD related to symbolic number processing. Children with DD aged 9–11 years and matched children with no learning disability history were investigated using fMRI. The two groups of children were controlled for general cognitive factors, such as working memory, reading abilities, or IQ. Brain activations were measured during a number comparison task on pairs of Arabic numerals and a color comparison task on pairs of nonnumerical symbols. In each task, pairs of stimuli that were close or far on the relevant dimension were constituted. Brain activation in bilateral intraparietal sulcus (IPS) was modulated by numerical distance in controls but not in children with DD. Moreover, although the right IPS responded to numerical distance only, the left IPS was influenced by both numerical and color distances in control children. Our findings suggest that dyscalculia is associated with impairment in areas involved in number magnitude processing and, to a lesser extent, in areas dedicated to domain-general magnitude processing.

Embodied numerosity: Implicit hand-based representations influence symbolic number processing across cultures

Cognition ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Domahs ◽  
Korbinian Moeller ◽  
Stefan Huber ◽  
Klaus Willmes ◽  
Hans-Christoph Nuerk
Keyword(s):  
Number Processing ◽  
Symbolic Number

scholarly journals Measuring toddlers non-symbolic number processing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus Lindskog ◽  
Victoria Simms
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Number Processing ◽  
Mathematical Ability ◽  
Comparison Task ◽  
Number Concepts ◽  
Processing Task ◽  
Number Concept ◽  
Verbal Instructions ◽  
Symbolic Number

Much research has investigated children’s non-symbolic number processing and its relation to mathematical ability. However, surprisingly few studies have investigated performance in 18-36 month-olds, where symbolic number concepts begin to emerge, and the extent results indicate poor performance. We tested 74 2 - 3.5 year-olds recruited from two sites (Ulster and Uppsala). They completed a novel dot-comparison task where children were shown, but not verbally instructed, how pushing a more numerous array resulted in reward and a Give-N task. Overall, participants performed above chance on the dot comparison task, indicating that non-symbolic number processing skills can be measured in toddlers without verbal instructions. We found no relation between performance on the non-symbolic number processing task and knower-level. Our results warrant two conclusions. First, verbal instructions involving the concept of more are not necessary to measure non-symbolic number processing skills in young children. Second, the development of a symbolic number concept seems independent of the development of non-symbolic comparison skills but may become artificially related when researchers use quantifiers such as “more” to measure the former.

scholarly journals Non-Symbolic Numerosity and Symbolic Numbers are not Processed Intuitively in Children: Evidence From an Event-Related Potential Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne H. van Hoogmoed ◽  
Marije D. E. Huijsmans ◽  
Evelyn H. Kroesbergen
Keyword(s):  
Number System ◽  
Number Processing ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Visual Features ◽  
Approximate Number System ◽  
Match To Sample ◽  
Potential Study ◽  
Symbolic Number

The approximate number system (ANS) theory and the ANS mapping account have been the most prominent theories on non-symbolic numerosity processing and symbolic number processing respectively, over the last 20 years. Recently, there is a growing debate about these theories, mainly based on research in adults. However, whether the ANS theory and ANS mapping account explain the processing of non-symbolic numerosity and symbolic number in childhood has received little attention. In the current ERP study, we first examined whether non-symbolic numerosity processing in 9-to-12-year-old children (N = 34) is intuitive, as proposed by the ANS theory. Second, we examined whether symbolic number processing is rooted in non-symbolic numerosity processing, as proposed the ANS mapping account. ERPs were measured during four same-different match-to-sample tasks with non-symbolic numerosities, symbolic numbers, and combinations of both. We found no evidence for intuitive processing of non-symbolic numerosity. Instead, children processed the visual features of non-symbolic stimuli more automatically than the numerosity itself. Moreover, children do not seem to automatically activate non-symbolic numerosity when processing symbolic numbers. These results challenge the ANS theory and ANS mapping account in 9-to-12-year-old children.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document