Display options
Cite
Guillaume M, Gevers W, Content A. Assessing the Approximate Number System: no relation between numerical comparison and estimation tasks. Psychol Res. 2015;80(2):248-58doi: 10.1007/s00426-015-0657-x.
Guillaume, M., Gevers, W., & Content, A. (2016). Assessing the Approximate Number System: no relation between numerical comparison and estimation tasks. Psychological research, 80(2), 248-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0657-x
Guillaume, Mathieu, et al. "Assessing the Approximate Number System: no relation between numerical comparison and estimation tasks." Psychological research vol. 80,2 (2016): 248-58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0657-x
Guillaume M, Gevers W, Content A. Assessing the Approximate Number System: no relation between numerical comparison and estimation tasks. Psychol Res. 2016 Mar;80(2):248-58. doi: 10.1007/s00426-015-0657-x. Epub 2015 Mar 06. PMID: 25742706.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Psychol Res. 2016 Mar;80(2):248-58. doi: 10.1007/s00426-015-0657-x. Epub 2015 Mar 06.

Assessing the Approximate Number System: no relation between numerical comparison and estimation tasks.

Psychological research

Mathieu Guillaume, Wim Gevers, Alain Content

Affiliations

  1. Cognitive Science and Assessment Institute (COSA), Department of Education, Culture, Cognition and Society (ECCS), University of Luxembourg, Walferdange, Luxembourg. [email protected].
  2. Centre de Recherche Cognition and Neurosciences (CRCN), ULB Neuroscience Institute (UNI), Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Av. F. Roosevelt 50/191, 1050, Brussels, Belgium. [email protected].
  3. Centre de Recherche Cognition and Neurosciences (CRCN), ULB Neuroscience Institute (UNI), Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Av. F. Roosevelt 50/191, 1050, Brussels, Belgium.

PMID: 25742706 DOI: 10.1007/s00426-015-0657-x

Abstract

Whether our general numerical skills and the mathematical knowledge that we acquire at school are entwined is a debated issue, which many researchers are still striving to investigate. The findings reported in the literature are actually inconsistent; some studies emphasized the existence of a relationship between the acuity of the Approximate Number System (ANS) and arithmetic competence, while some others did not observe any significant correlation. One potential explanation of the discrepancy might stem from the evaluation of the ANS itself. In the present study, we correlated two measures used to index ANS acuity with arithmetic performance. These measures were the Weber fraction (w), computed from a numerical comparison task and the coefficient of variation (CV), computed from a numerical estimation task. Arithmetic performance correlated with estimation CV but not with comparison w. We further investigated the meaning of this result by taking the relationship between w and CV into account. We expected a tight relation as both these measures are believed to assess ANS acuity. Crucially, however, w and CV did not correlate with each other. Moreover, the value of w was modulated by the congruity of the relation between numerical magnitude and non-numerical visual cues, potentially accounting for the lack of correlation between the measures. Our findings thus challenge the overuse of w to assess ANS acuity and more generally put into question the relevance of correlating this measure with arithmetic without any deeper understanding of what they are really indexing.

References

  1. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Apr 19;6:68 - PubMed
  2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jul 10;109(28):11116-20 - PubMed
  3. Cogn Psychol. 2012 Feb;64(1-2):74-92 - PubMed
  4. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6 - PubMed
  5. Nature. 2008 Oct 2;455(7213):665-8 - PubMed
  6. J Exp Child Psychol. 2009 May;103(1):17-29 - PubMed
  7. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2013;66(2):389-402 - PubMed
  8. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e33832 - PubMed
  9. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2013 Nov;144(3):506-12 - PubMed
  10. Science. 2004 Oct 15;306(5695):499-503 - PubMed
  11. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2012;65(4):675-90 - PubMed
  12. J Exp Child Psychol. 2013 Mar;114(3):418-31 - PubMed
  13. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 Nov;141(3):373-9 - PubMed
  14. Front Psychol. 2013 Aug 29;4:518 - PubMed
  15. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Jan;18(1):1-3 - PubMed
  16. Cognition. 2001 Nov;82(1):B25-33 - PubMed
  17. Child Neuropsychol. 2012;18(6):550-75 - PubMed
  18. Psychophysiology. 2012 Nov;49(11):1481-91 - PubMed
  19. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2006 Apr;16(2):222-9 - PubMed
  20. Dev Sci. 2011 Nov;14(6):1292-300 - PubMed
  21. Cognition. 2013 Oct;129(1):63-9 - PubMed
  22. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2011 Jan;136(1):112-8 - PubMed
  23. Exp Psychol. 2011;58(1):39-49 - PubMed
  24. Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Dec;18(6):1222-9 - PubMed
  25. Dev Sci. 2014 Sep;17(5):714-26 - PubMed
  26. Cognition. 2011 Nov;121(2):256-61 - PubMed
  27. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014 Jul;150:120-8 - PubMed
  28. Behav Res Methods. 2011 Dec;43(4):981-6 - PubMed
  29. Dev Psychol. 2008 Sep;44(5):1457-65 - PubMed
  30. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 13;8(6):e67374 - PubMed
  31. Child Dev. 2014 Jul-Aug;85(4):1740-55 - PubMed
  32. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37426 - PubMed
  33. Br J Dev Psychol. 2012 Jun;30(Pt 2):344-57 - PubMed
  34. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1983 Jul;9(3):320-34 - PubMed
  35. Cognition. 2006 Jan;98(3):199-222 - PubMed
  36. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 May;140(1):50-7 - PubMed
  37. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012 Nov;141(4):642-8 - PubMed
  38. Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1221-47 - PubMed
  39. Cognition. 1990 Nov;37(1-2):55-81 - PubMed
  40. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Nov;64(11):2099-109 - PubMed
  41. Neuron. 2004 Oct 28;44(3):547-55 - PubMed
  42. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Apr;7(4):145-147 - PubMed
  43. Nature. 2007 May 31;447(7144):589-91 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types