Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:01:21.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is the ANS linked to mathematics performance?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2017

Matthew Inglis ,
Sophie Batchelor ,
Camilla Gilmore  and
Derrick G. Watson
Matthew Inglis
Affiliation:
Mathematics Education Centre, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, United [email protected]@[email protected]://mcg.lboro.ac.uk/mjihttp://mcg.lboro.ac.uk/sbhttp://mcg.lboro.ac.uk/cg
Sophie Batchelor
Affiliation:
Mathematics Education Centre, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, United [email protected]@[email protected]://mcg.lboro.ac.uk/mjihttp://mcg.lboro.ac.uk/sbhttp://mcg.lboro.ac.uk/cg
Camilla Gilmore
Affiliation:
Mathematics Education Centre, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, United [email protected]@[email protected]://mcg.lboro.ac.uk/mjihttp://mcg.lboro.ac.uk/sbhttp://mcg.lboro.ac.uk/cg
Derrick G. Watson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United [email protected]://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/psych/people/dwatson/dwatson/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leibovich et al. argue persuasively that researchers should not assume that approximate number system (ANS) tasks harness an innate sense of number. However, some studies have reported a causal link between ANS tasks and mathematics performance, implicating the ANS in the development of numerical skills. Here we report a p-curve analysis, which indicates that these experimental studies do not contain evidential value.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e174
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chen, Q. & Li, J. (2014) Association between individual differences in non-symbolic number acuity and math performance: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica 148:163–72.Google Scholar
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. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096514000204.Google Scholar
Fuhs, M. W. & McNeil, N. M. (2013) ANS acuity and mathematics ability in preschoolers from low-income homes: Contributions of inhibitory control. Developmental Science 16:136–48.Google Scholar
Gebuis, T., Cohen Kadosh, R. & Gevers, W. (2016) Sensory-integration system rather than approximate number system underlies numerosity processing: A critical review. Acta Psychologica 171:17–35.Google Scholar
Gilmore, C., Attridge, N., Clayton, S., Cragg, L., Johnson, S., Marlow, N., Simms, V. & Inglis, M. (2013) Individual differences in inhibitory control, not non-verbal number acuity, correlate with mathematics achievement. PLoS ONE 8:e67374. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067374.Google Scholar
Hyde, D. C., Khanum, S. & Spelke, E. S. (2014) Brief non-symbolic, approximate number practice enhances subsequent exact symbolic arithmetic in children. Cognition 131:92–107.Google Scholar
Khanum, S., Hanif, R., Spelke, E., Berteletti, I. & Hyde, D. C. (2016) Effects of non-symbolic approximate number practice on symbolic numerical abilities in Pakistani children. PLoS ONE 11:e0164436.Google Scholar
Lindskog, M. & Winman, A. (2016) No evidence of learning in non-symbolic numerical tasks – A comment on Park & Brannon (2014) Cognition 150:243–47.Google Scholar
Merkley, R., Matejko, A. A. & Ansari, D. (2017) Strong causal claims require strong evidence: A commentary on Wang and colleagues. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 153:163–67.Google Scholar
Park, J., Bermudez, V., Roberts, R. C. & Brannon, E. M. (2016a) Non-symbolic approximate arithmetic training improves math performance in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 152:278–93.Google Scholar
Park, J. & Brannon, E. M. (2013) Training the approximate number system improves math proficiency. Psychological Science 24:2013–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, J. & Brannon, E. M. (2014) Improving arithmetic performance with number sense training: An investigation of underlying mechanism. Cognition 133:188–200.Google Scholar
Park, J. & Brannon, E. M. (2016) How to interpret cognitive training studies: A reply to Lindskog & Winman. Cognition 150:247–51.Google Scholar
Schneider, M., Beeres, K., Coban, L., Merz, S., Schmidt, 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(30);e12372. doi: 10.1111/desc.12372.Google Scholar
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D. & Simmons, J. P. (2014) P-curve: A key to the file-drawer . Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143:534–47.Google Scholar
Simonsohn, U., Simmons, J. P. & Nelson, L. D. (2015) Better P-curves: Making P-curve analysis more robust to errors, fraud, and ambitious P-hacking, a reply to Ulrich and Miller (2015) Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144:1146–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorell, L. B., Lindqvist, S., Bergman Nutley, S., Bohlin, G. & Klingberg, T. (2009) Training and transfer effects of executive functions in preschool children. Developmental Science 12:106–13.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Odic, D., Halberda, J. & Feigenson, L. (2017) Better together: Multiple lines of evidence for a link between approximate and exact number representations: A reply to Merkley, Matejko, and Ansari. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 153:168–72.Google Scholar