The relationship between the approximate number system and mathematical abilities: Evidence from developmental research

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.00827

Abstract

Abstract:

The approximate number system plays an important role in the development of individual mathematical abilities, and the relationship between the two factors is affected by age. Mainly, as age increases, the degree of correlation gradually weakens, and the mechanisms change from cardinal knowledge mediation to the joint effect of multiple intermediary variables. Future research should use a more rigorous experimental design and multiple research methods to investigate the development trend, causal direction, key turning points and the underlying mechanisms of the relationship between the approximate number system and different mathematical abilities of children of all ages to better understand the role of the approximate number system in the development of individual mathematical abilities.

Key words: approximate number system, mathematical abilities, cardinal knowledge mediation hypothesis, visual form perception hypothesis, development

CLC Number:

LIANG Xiao, KANG Jingmei, WANG Lijuan. The relationship between the approximate number system and mathematical abilities: Evidence from developmental research[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2021, 29(5): 827-837.

References 100

[1]	Agrillo, C., Piffer, L., & Adriano, A. (2013). Individual differences in non-symbolic numerical abilities predict mathematical achievements but contradict ATOM. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 9(1),26. URL pmid: 23815866
[2]	Alvarez, J., Abdul-Chani, M., Deutchman, P., DiBiasie, K., Iannucci, J., Lipstein, R.,... Sullivan, J. (2017). Estimation as analogy-making: Evidence that preschoolers' analogical reasoning ability predicts their numerical estimation. Cognitive Development, 41,73-84.
[3]	Bartelet, D., Vaessen, A., Blomert, L., & Ansari, D. (2014). What basic number processing measures in kindergarten explain unique variability in first-grade arithmetic proficiency? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 117,12-28. URL pmid: 24128690
[4]	Bethany, R. J., Emily, R. F., Kerry, G. H., & Dale, C. F. (2016). Early math trajectories: Low-income children's mathematics knowledge from ages 4 to 11. Child Development, 88(5),1727-1742. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12662 URL pmid: 27921305
[5]	Bonny, J. W., & Lourenco, S. F. (2013). The approximate number system and its relation to early math achievement: evidence from the preschool years. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(3),375-388. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.015 URL
[6]	Buckley, P. B., & Gillman, C. B. (1974). Comparisons of digits and dot patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103(6),1131-1136. URL pmid: 4457588
[7]	Bull, R., & Lee, K. (2014). Executive functioning and mathematics achievement. Child Development Perspectives, 8(1),36-41.
[8]	Butterworth, B., & Walsh, V. (2011). Neural basis of mathematical cognition. Current Biology, 21(16),R618- R621.
[9]	Castronovo, J., & Göbel, S. M. (2012). Impact of high mathematics education on the number sense. Plos One, 7(4),e33832.
[10]	Chu, F. W., Vanmarle, K., & Geary, D. C. (2015). Early numerical foundations of young children's mathematical development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 132,205-212.
[11]	Chu, F. W., Vanmarle, K., & Geary, D. C. (2016). Predicting children's reading and mathematics achievement from early quantitative knowledge and domain-general cognitive abilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 7,775.
[12]	Clark, C. A. C., Pritchard, V. E., & Woodward, L. J. (2010). Preschool executive functioning abilities predict early mathematics achievement. Developmental Psychology, 46(5),1176-1191. doi: 10.1037/a0019672 URL pmid: 20822231
[13]	Clayton, S., Gilmore, C., & Inglis, M. (2015). Dot comparison stimuli are not all alike: The effect of different visual controls on ANS measurement. Acta Psychologica, 161,177-184.
[14]	Cochrane, A., Cui, L., Hubbard, E. M., & Green, C. S. (2019). “Approximate number system” training: A perceptual learning approach. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 81(3),621-636.
[15]	Cordes, S., Gelman, R., Gallistel, C. R., & Whalen, J. (2001). Variability signatures distinguish verbal from nonverbal counting for both large and small numbers. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(4),698-707.
[16]	Crollen, V., Castronovo, J., & Seron, X. (2011). Under- and over-estimation: a bi-directional mapping process between symbolic and non-symbolic representations of number? Experimental Psychology, 58(1),39-49. URL pmid: 20494869
[17]	Cui, J., Zhang, Y., Cheng, D., Li, D., & Zhou, X. (2017). Visual form perception can be a cognitive correlate of lower level math categories for teenagers. Frontiers in Psychology, 8,1336.
[18]	Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3-6),487-506.
[19]	DeWind, N. K., & Brannon, E. M. (2012). Malleability of the approximate number system: Effects of feedback and training. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6,68.
[20]	Dietrich, J. F., Huber, S., & Nuerk, H. C. (2015). Methodological aspects to be considered when measuring the approximate number system (ANS) - A research review. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,295. URL pmid: 25852612
[21]	Elliott, L., Feigenson, L., Halberda, J., & Libertus, M. E. (2019). Bidirectional, longitudinal associations between math ability and approximate number system precision in childhood. Journal of Cognition and Development, 20(1),56-74.
[22]	Fazio, L. K., Bailey, D. H., Thompson, C. A., & Siegler, R. S. (2014). Relations of different types of numerical magnitude representations to each other and to mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 123,53-72. URL pmid: 24699178
[23]	Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7),307-314. URL pmid: 15242690
[24]	Ferrigno, S., Jara-Ettinger, J., Piantadosi, S. T., & Cantlon, J. F. (2017). Universal and uniquely human factors in spontaneous number perception. Nature Communications, 8(1),1-10. doi: 10.1038/s41467-016-0009-6 URL pmid: 28232747
[25]	Fuhs, M. W., & Mcneil, N. M. (2013). ANS acuity and mathematics ability in preschoolers from low-income homes: Contributions of inhibitory control. Developmental Science, 16(1),136-148. URL pmid: 23278935
[26]	Gallistel, C. (2011). Prelinguistic thought. Language Learning and Development, 7(4),253-262.
[27]	Geary, D. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 47(6),1539-1552. URL pmid: 21942667
[28]	Geary, D. C., Bailey, D. H., & Hoard, M. K. (2009). Predicting mathematical achievement and mathematical learning disability with a simple screening tool: The number sets test. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(3),265-279. URL pmid: 20161145
[29]	Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Bailey, D. H. (2013). Adolescents' functional numeracy is predicted by their school entry number system knowledge. Plos One, 8(1),e54651.
[30]	Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Rouder, J. N. (2015). Individual differences in algebraic cognition: Relation to the approximate number and semantic memory systems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 140,211-227. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.07.010 URL pmid: 26255604
[31]	Gebuis, T., & Reynvoet, B. (2012). The interplay between nonsymbolic number and its continuous visual properties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4),642-648.
[32]	Gilmore, C., Attridge, N., Clayton, S., Cragg, L., Johnson, S., Marlow, N.,... Inglis, M. (2013). Individual differences in inhibitory control, not non-verbal number acuity, correlate with mathematics achievement. Plos One, 8(6),e67374. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067374 URL pmid: 23785521
[33]	Gilmore, C., Cragg, L., Hogan, G., & Inglis, M. (2016). Congruency effects in dot comparison tasks: Convex hull is more important than dot area. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(8),923-931.
[34]	Ginsburg, H. P., & Baroody, A. J. (2003). Test of early mathematics ability(3rd ed). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
[35]	Glutting, J., & Jordan, N. C. (2012). Number sense screener. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
[36]	Goffin, C., & Ansari, D. (2019). How are symbols and nonsymbolic numerical magnitudes related? Exploring bidirectional relationships in early numeracy. Mind, Brain, and Education, 13(3),143-156.
[37]	Gouet, C., Silva, C. A., Guedes, B., & Pena, M. (2018). Cognitive and neural effects of a brief nonsymbolic approximate arithmetic training in healthy first grade children. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroence, 12(13),28.
[38]	Guillaume, M., Nys, J., Mussolin, C., & Content, A. (2013). Differences in the acuity of the approximate number system in adults: The effect of mathematical ability. Acta Psychologica, 144(3),506-512. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.09.001 URL pmid: 24096088
[39]	Halberda, J., Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature, 455(7213),665-668. URL pmid: 18776888
[40]	He, Y., Zhou, X., Shi, D., Song, H., Zhang, H., & Shi, J. (2016). New evidence on causal relationship between approximate number system (ANS) acuity and arithmetic ability in elementary-school students: A longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(26),1052.
[41]	Holloway, I. D., & Ansari, D. (2009). Mapping numerical magnitudes onto symbols: The numerical distance effect and individual differences in children's mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103(1),17-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2008.04.001 URL pmid: 18513738
[42]	Holloway, I. D., Price, G. R., & Ansari, D. (2010). Common and segregated neural pathways for the processing of symbolic and nonsymbolic numerical magnitude: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 49(1),1006-1017. URL pmid: 19666127
[43]	Hutchison, J. E., Ansari, D., Zheng, S., De Jesus, S., & Lyons, I. M. (2020). The relation between subitizable symbolic and non-symbolic number processing over the kindergarten school year. Developmental Science, 23(2),e12884. doi: 10.1111/desc.12884 URL pmid: 31271687
[44]	Hyde, D. C., Khanum, S., & Spelke, E. S. (2014). Brief non-symbolic, approximate number practice enhances subsequent exact symbolic arithmetic in children. Cognition, 131(1),92-107. URL pmid: 24462713
[45]	Inglis, M., Attridge, N., Batchelor, S., & Gilmore, C. (2011). Non-verbal number acuity correlates with symbolic mathematics achievement: But only in children. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(6),1222-1229. URL pmid: 21898191
[46]	Inglis, M., & Gilmore, C. (2014). Indexing the approximate number system. Acta Psychologica, 145,147-155. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.11.009 URL pmid: 24361686
[47]	Keller, L., & Libertus, M. (2015). Inhibitory control may not explain the link between approximation and math abilities in kindergarteners from middle class families. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,685. URL pmid: 26052306
[48]	Khanum, S., Hanif, R., Spelke, E. S., Berteletti, I., & Hyde, D. C. (2016). Effects of non-symbolic approximate number practice on symbolic numerical abilities in pakistani children. Plos One, 11(10),e0164436. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164436 URL pmid: 27764117
[49]	Kolkman, M. E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2013). Early numerical development and the role of non-symbolic and symbolic skills. Learning and Instruction, 25,95-103.
[50]	LeFevre, J. -A., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S. -L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Bisanz, J., Kamawar, D., & Penner-Wilger, M. (2010). Pathways to mathematics: Longitudinal predictors of performance. Child Development, 81(6),1753-1767. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01508.x URL pmid: 21077862
[51]	Libertus, M. E., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2013). Is approximate number precision a stable predictor of math ability? Learning and Individual Differences, 25,126- 133. URL pmid: 23814453
[52]	Libertus, M. E., Odic, D., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2020). Effects of visual training of approximate number sense on auditory number sense and school math ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 11,2085. URL pmid: 32973627
[53]	Libertus, M. E., Odic, D., & Halberda, J. (2012). Intuitive sense of number correlates with math scores on college- entrance examination. Acta Psychologica, 141(3),373-379. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.09.009 URL pmid: 23098904
[54]	Lindskog, M., & Winman, A. (2016). No evidence of learning in non-symbolic numerical tasks - A comment on Park and Brannon (2014). Cognition, 150,243-247. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.01.005 URL pmid: 26972468
[55]	Lindskog, M., Winman, A., Juslin, P., & Poom, L. (2013). Measuring acuity of the approximate number system reliably and validly: The evaluation of an adaptive test procedure. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(8),510.
[56]	Lyons, I. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Numerical ordering ability mediates the relation between number-sense and arithmetic competence. Cognition, 121(2),256-261. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.07.009 URL
[57]	Lyons, I. M., Bugden, S., Zheng, S., De Jesus, S., & Ansari, D. (2018). Symbolic number skills predict growth in nonsymbolic number skills in kindergarteners. Developmental Psychology, 54(3),440-457. doi: 10.1037/dev0000445 URL pmid: 29154653
[58]	Maertens, B., de Smedt, B., Sasanguie, D., Elen, J., & Reynvoet, B. (2016). Enhancing arithmetic in pre-schoolers with comparison or number line estimation training: Does it matter? Learning and Instruction, 46,1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.08.004 URL
[59]	Malone, S. A., Pritchard, V. E., Heron-delaney, M., Burgoyne, K., Lervag, A., & Hulme, C. (2019). The relationship between numerosity discrimination and arithmetic skill reflects the approximate number system and cannot be explained by inhibitory control. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 184,220-231. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2019.02.009 URL pmid: 30935590
[60]	Matejko, A. A., & Ansari, D. (2016). Trajectories of symbolic and nonsymbolic magnitude processing in the first year of formal schooling. Plos One, 11(3),e0149863. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149863 URL pmid: 26930195
[61]	Mazzocco, M. M. M., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2011). Preschoolers' precision of the approximate number system predicts later school mathematics performance. Plos One, 6 (9),e23749. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023749 URL pmid: 21935362
[62]	Mussolin, C., Nys, J., & Leybaert, J. (2014). Symbolic number abilities predict later approximate number system acuity in preschool children. Plos One, 9(3),e91839. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091839 URL pmid: 24637785
[63]	Mussolin, C., Nys, J., Leybaert, J., & Content, A. (2016). How approximate and exact number skills are related to each other across development: a review. Developmental Review, 39,1-15.
[64]	Norris, J. E., Clayton, S., Gilmore, C. K., Inglis, M., & Castronovo, J. (2019). The measurement of approximate number system acuity across the lifespan is compromised by congruency effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(5),1037-1046.
[65]	Nys, J., Ventura, P., Fernandes, T., Querido, L., Leybaert, J., & Content, A. (2013). Does math education modify the approximate number system? A comparison of schooled and unschooled adults. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2(1),13-22.
[66]	Obersteiner, A., Reiss, K., & Ufer, S. (2013). How training on exact or approximate mental representations of number can enhance first-grade students' basic number processing and arithmetic skills. Learning and Instruction, 23,125- 135.
[67]	Odic, D., Hock, H., & Halberda, J. (2014). Hysteresis affects approximate number discrimination in young children. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1),255-265.
[68]	Park, J., Bermudez, V., Roberts, R. C., & Brannon, E. M. (2016). Non-symbolic approximate arithmetic training improves math performance in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 152,278-293.
[69]	Park, J., & Brannon, E. M. (2013). Training the approximate number system improves math proficiency. Psychological Science, 24(10),2013-2019. URL pmid: 23921769
[70]	Park, J., & Brannon, E. M. (2014). Improving arithmetic performance with number sense training: An investigation of underlying mechanism. Cognition, 133(1),188-200.
[71]	Peng, P., Yang, X., & Meng, X. (2017). The relation between approximate number system and early arithmetic: The mediation role of numerical knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 157,111-124. URL pmid: 28142096
[72]	Piazza, M., Pica, P., Izard, V., Spelke, E., & Dehaene, S. (2013). Education enhances the acuity of the nonverbal approximate number system. Psychological Science, 24(6),1037-1043.
[73]	Piazza, M., Pinel, P., Bihan, D. L., & Dehaene, S. (2007). A magnitude code common to numerosities and number symbols in human intraparietal cortex. Neuron, 53(2),293-305. URL pmid: 17224409
[74]	Price, G. R., Palmer, D., Battista, C., & Ansari, D. (2012). Nonsymbolic numerical magnitude comparison: Reliability and validity of different task variants and outcome measures, and their relationship to arithmetic achievement in adults. Acta Psychologica, 140(1),50-57. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.02.008 URL pmid: 22445770
[75]	Sasanguie, D., Defever, E., Maertens, B., & Reynvoet, B. (2014). The approximate number system is not predictive for symbolic number processing in kindergarteners. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(2),271-280.
[76]	Sasanguie, D., Defever, E., van den Bussche, E., & Reynvoet, B. (2011). The reliability of and the relation between non-symbolic numerical distance effects in comparison, same-different judgments and priming. Acta Psychologica, 136(1),73-80. URL pmid: 21075357
[77]	Sasanguie, D., Gobel, S. M., Moll, K., Smets, K., & Reynvoet, B. (2013). Approximate number sense, symbolic number processing, or number-space mappings: What underlies mathematics achievement? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(3),418-431. URL pmid: 23270796
[78]	Schneider, M., Beeres, K., Coban, L., Merz, S., Schmidt, S. S., Stricker, J., & de Smedt, B. (2017). Associations of non-symbolic and symbolic numerical magnitude processing with mathematical competence: A meta-analysis. Developmental Science, 20(3),e12372.
[79]	Sella, F., Tressoldi, P., Lucangeli, D., & Zorzi, M. (2016). Training numerical skills with the adaptive videogame “The Number Race”: A randomized controlled trial on preschoolers. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5(1),20-29.
[80]	Shusterman, A., Slusser, E., Halberda, J., & Odic, D. (2016). Acquisition of the cardinal principle coincides with improvement in approximate number system acuity in preschoolers. Plos One, 11(4),e0153072. URL pmid: 27078257
[81]	Sigmundsson, H., Anholt, S. K., & Talcott, J. B. (2010). Are poor mathematics skills associated with visual deficits in temporal processing. Neuroscience Letters, 469(2),248-250. URL pmid: 19995594
[82]	Smets, K., Sasanguie, D., Szucs, D., & Reynvoet, B. (2015). The effect of different methods to construct non-symbolic stimuli in numerosity estimation and comparison. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(3),310-325.
[83]	Sokolowski, H. M., Fias, W., Mousa, A., & Ansari, D. (2016). Common and distinct brain regions in both parietal and frontal cortex support symbolic and nonsymbolic number processing in humans: A functional neuroimaging meta-analysis. NeuroImage, 146,376-394. URL pmid: 27769786
[84]	Soltész, F., Szucs, D., & Szucs, L. (2010). Relationships between magnitude representation, counting and memory in 4- to 7-year-old children: A developmental study. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 6(1),13.
[85]	Soto-Calvo, E., Simmons, F., Willis, C., & Adams, A. (2015). Identifying the cognitive predictors of early counting and calculation skills: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 140,16-37. URL pmid: 26218332
[86]	Suárez-Pellicioni, M., & Booth, J. R. (2018). Fluency in symbolic arithmetic refines the approximate number system in parietal cortex. Human Brain Mapping, 39(10),3956-3971.
[87]	Swanson, H. L. (2011). Working memory, attention, and mathematical problem solving: A longitudinal study of elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4),821-837.
[88]	Szkudlarek, E., & Brannon, E. M. (2017). Does the approximate number system serve as a foundation for symbolic mathematics. Language Learning and Development, 13(2),171-190. doi: 10.1080/15475441.2016.1263573 URL
[89]	Szkudlarek, E., & Brannon, E. M. (2018). Approximate arithmetic training improves informal math performance in low achieving preschoolers. Frontiers in Psychology, 9,606. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00606 URL pmid: 29867624
[90]	Vanbinst, K., Ghesquiere, P., & de Smedt, B , . (2012). Numerical magnitude representations and individual differences in children's arithmetic strategy use. Mind, Brain, and Education, 6(3),129-136.
[91]	Vanbinst, K., Ghesquière, P., & de Smedt, B. (2015). Does numerical processing uniquely predict first graders' future development of single-digit arithmetic? Learning and Individual Differences, 37,153-160.
[92]	van Marle, K., Chu, F. W., Li, Y., & Geary, D. C. (2014). Acuity of the approximate number system and preschoolers' quantitative development. Developmental Science, 17(4),492-505. URL pmid: 24498980
[93]	Wang, J., Odic, D., Halberda, J., & Feigenson, L. (2016). Changing the precision of preschoolers' approximate number system representations changes their symbolic math performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 147,82-99. URL pmid: 27061668
[94]	Wang, L., Sun, Y., & Zhou, X. (2016). Relation between approximate number system acuity and mathematical achievement: The influence of fluency. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(26),1966.
[95]	Wei, W., Yuan, H., Chen, C., & Zhou, X. (2012). Cognitive correlates of performance in advanced mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1),157- 181.
[96]	Woodcock, R. W., Johnson, M. B., & Mather, N. (1990). Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational battery — Revised. DLM Teaching Resources.
[97]	Zhang, Y., Chen, C., Liu, H., Cui, J., & Zhou, X. (2016). Both non-symbolic and symbolic quantity processing are important for arithmetical computation but not for mathematical reasoning. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(7),807-824.
[98]	Zhang, Y., Liu, T., Chen, C., & Zhou, X. (2019). Visual form perception supports approximate number system acuity and arithmetic fluency. Learning & Individual Differences, 71,1-12.
[99]	Zhou, X., & Cheng, D. (2015). When and why numerosity processing is associated with developmental dyscalculia. In The Routledge international handbook of dyscalculia and mathematical learning difficulties (pp.78-89). Routledge.
[100]	Zhou, X., Wei, W., Zhang, Y., Cui, J., & Chen, C. (2015). Visual perception can account for the close relation between numerosity processing and computational fluency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,1364. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01364 URL pmid: 26441740