Effects of non-symbolic arithmetic training on symbolic arithmetic and the approximate number system.

The approximate number system (ANS) is an innate cognitive template that allows for the mental representation of approximate magnitude, and has been controversially linked to symbolic number knowledge and math ability. A series of recent studies found that an approximate arithmetic training (AAT) task that draws upon the ANS can improve math skills, which not only supports the existence of this link, but suggests it may be causal. However, no direct transfer effects to any measure of the ANS have yet been reported, calling into question the mechanisms by which math improvements may emerge. The present study investigated the effects of a 7-day AAT and successfully replicated previously reported transfer effects to math. Furthermore, our exploratory analyses provide preliminary evidence that certain ANS-related skills may also be susceptible to training. We conclude that AAT has reproducible effects on math performance, and provide avenues for future studies to further explore underlying mechanisms - specifically, the link between improvements in math and improvements in ANS skills.

[1]  Elizabeth M. Brannon,et al.  Malleability of the approximate number system: effects of feedback and training , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[2]  Susanne M. Jaeggi,et al.  Working memory training improves reading processes in typically developing children , 2012, Child neuropsychology : a journal on normal and abnormal development in childhood and adolescence.

[3]  Justin Halberda,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : General Hysteresis Affects Approximate Number Discrimination in Young Children , 2012 .

[4]  Michael Schneider,et al.  Representations of the magnitudes of fractions. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  Philippe Pinel,et al.  Tuning Curves for Approximate Numerosity in the Human Intraparietal Sulcus , 2004, Neuron.

[6]  John Todman,et al.  Analysis of Pre‐test‐Post‐test Control Group Designs in Educational Research , 1995 .

[7]  S. Dehaene,et al.  An open trial assessment of "The Number Race", an adaptive computer game for remediation of dyscalculia , 2006, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[8]  Marcus Lindskog,et al.  Are there rapid feedback effects on Approximate Number System acuity? , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[9]  R. Mclean,et al.  Using a repeated measures ANOVA to analyze the data from a pretest-posttest design : a potentially confusing task , 1975 .

[10]  Dénes Szűcs,et al.  A critical analysis of design, facts, bias and inference in the approximate number system training literature: A systematic review , 2017, Trends in Neuroscience and Education.

[11]  Pierre Pica,et al.  Education Enhances the Acuity of the Nonverbal Approximate Number System , 2013, Psychological science.

[12]  J. Halberda,et al.  Approximate number and approximate time discrimination each correlate with school math abilities in young children. , 2016, Acta psychologica.

[13]  Manuela Piazza,et al.  Neurocognitive start-up tools for symbolic number representations , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[14]  Amy Devine,et al.  Visual stimulus parameters seriously compromise the measurement of approximate number system acuity and comparative effects between adults and children , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[15]  Justin Halberda,et al.  Number sense across the lifespan as revealed by a massive Internet-based sample , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Christophe Ley,et al.  Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median , 2013 .

[17]  Justin Halberda,et al.  Is Approximate Number Precision a Stable Predictor of Math Ability? , 2013, Learning and individual differences.

[18]  Marcus Lindskog,et al.  The association between higher education and approximate number system acuity , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[19]  L. Feigenson,et al.  Changing the precision of preschoolers' approximate number system representations changes their symbolic math performance. , 2016, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[20]  Ariel Starr,et al.  Number sense in infancy predicts mathematical abilities in childhood , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  L. Feigenson,et al.  Approximate number sense correlates with math performance in gifted adolescents. , 2017, Acta psychologica.

[22]  Qixuan Chen,et al.  Association between individual differences in non-symbolic number acuity and math performance: a meta-analysis. , 2014, Acta psychologica.

[23]  Connor D. O'Rear,et al.  The Role of Non-Numerical Stimulus Features in Approximate Number System Training in Preschoolers from Low-Income Homes , 2016 .

[24]  Bert Reynvoet,et al.  The Role of Visual Information in Numerosity Estimation , 2012, PloS one.

[25]  Justin Halberda,et al.  Impaired acuity of the approximate number system underlies mathematical learning disability (dyscalculia). , 2011, Child development.

[26]  Daniel Ansari,et al.  How do symbolic and non-symbolic numerical magnitude processing skills relate to individual differences in children's mathematical skills? A review of evidence from brain and behavior , 2013, Trends in Neuroscience and Education.

[27]  Susanne M. Jaeggi,et al.  The Relationship between N-Back Performance and Matrix Reasoning--Implications for Training and Transfer. , 2010 .

[28]  James V. Hinrichs,et al.  Two-digit number comparison: Use of place information. , 1981 .

[29]  R. Cohen Kadosh,et al.  Transfer of Cognitive Training across Magnitude Dimensions Achieved with Concurrent Brain Stimulation of the Parietal Lobe , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[30]  Christian Agrillo,et al.  Number versus continuous quantity in numerosity judgments by fish , 2011, Cognition.

[31]  Victor B. Zordan,et al.  The Benefits and Challenges of Implementing Motivational Features to Boost Cognitive Training Outcome , 2017, Journal of Cognitive Enhancement.

[32]  Michael Schneider,et al.  Associations of non-symbolic and symbolic numerical magnitude processing with mathematical competence: a meta-analysis. , 2017, Developmental science.

[33]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Nonverbal Counting in Humans: The Psychophysics of Number Representation , 1999 .

[34]  Joonkoo Park,et al.  Non-symbolic approximate arithmetic training improves math performance in preschoolers. , 2016, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[35]  Matthew Inglis,et al.  Measuring the Approximate Number System , 2011, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[36]  ROBERT S. MOYER,et al.  Time required for Judgements of Numerical Inequality , 1967, Nature.

[37]  Andrea Facoetti,et al.  Developmental trajectory of number acuity reveals a severe impairment in developmental dyscalculia , 2010, Cognition.

[38]  Susanne M. Jaeggi,et al.  The role of individual differences in cognitive training and transfer , 2014, Memory & cognition.

[39]  Paul B. Buckley,et al.  Comparisons of digits and dot patterns. , 1974, Journal of experimental psychology.

[40]  Ulf Träff,et al.  Developmental dyscalculia: A deficit in the approximate number system or an access deficit? , 2016 .

[41]  Emmy Defever,et al.  Concurrent validity of approximate number sense tasks in adults and children. , 2014, Acta psychologica.

[42]  Justin Halberda,et al.  Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement , 2008, Nature.

[43]  Silke M. Göbel,et al.  Impact of High Mathematics Education on the Number Sense , 2012, PloS one.

[44]  Melissa E. Libertus,et al.  Numerical approximation abilities correlate with and predict informal but not formal mathematics abilities. , 2013, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[45]  Priti Shah,et al.  Aging, Training, and the Brain: A Review and Future Directions , 2009, Neuropsychology Review.

[46]  Jonathan Westley Peirce,et al.  Neuroinformatics Original Research Article Generating Stimuli for Neuroscience Using Psychopy , 2022 .

[47]  Rochel Gelman,et al.  Variability signatures distinguish verbal from nonverbal counting for both large and small numbers , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[48]  Hans-Christoph Nuerk,et al.  Methodological aspects to be considered when measuring the approximate number system (ANS) – a research review , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[49]  Elizabeth M Brannon,et al.  Training the Approximate Number System Improves Math Proficiency , 2013, Psychological science.

[50]  C. Gilmore,et al.  Children's mapping between symbolic and nonsymbolic representations of number. , 2009, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[51]  Justin Halberda,et al.  Developmental change in the acuity of the "Number Sense": The Approximate Number System in 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds and adults. , 2008, Developmental psychology.

[52]  Elizabeth A. L. Stine-Morrow,et al.  Do “Brain-Training” Programs Work? , 2016, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[53]  Elizabeth M. Brannon,et al.  Improving arithmetic performance with number sense training: An investigation of underlying mechanism , 2014, Cognition.

[54]  Elizabeth S Spelke,et al.  Preschool children's mapping of number words to nonsymbolic numerosities. , 2005, Child development.

[55]  Justin Halberda,et al.  Intuitive sense of number correlates with math scores on college-entrance examination. , 2012, Acta psychologica.

[56]  D. Altman,et al.  Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha , 1997 .

[57]  Bert Reynvoet,et al.  The interplay between nonsymbolic number and its continuous visual properties. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[58]  Justin Halberda,et al.  Links Between the Intuitive Sense of Number and Formal Mathematics Ability. , 2013, Child development perspectives.

[59]  Bert Reynvoet,et al.  Effects of Presentation Type and Visual Control in Numerosity Discrimination: Implications for Number Processing? , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[60]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Abstract representations of numbers in the animal and human brain , 1998, Trends in Neurosciences.

[61]  No evidence of learning in non-symbolic numerical tasks – A comment on Park and Brannon (2014) , 2016, Cognition.

[62]  E. Brannon,et al.  How to interpret cognitive training studies: A reply to Lindskog & Winman , 2016, Cognition.