Non-symbolic numerical addition practice improves accuracy on symbolic arithmetic but not sentence completion, showing the practice effect is specific to mathematics¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Children trained on non-symbolic numerical addition were more accurate on symbolic mathematics problems than the brightness comparison group (t (46) = −2.814, p < .01), with no difference on sentence completion (t (46) = −.480, p = .633). → Hyde 2014
Evidence¶
Hyde 2014¶
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.007
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Experiment 2 with 48 first graders used an interleaved design with harder arithmetic problems and a sentence completion test. The interaction of Test Type and Training Condition was significant (F (1, 46) = 5.234, p < .05, ηp2 = .102), and "there was no difference between the two groups on the test of sentence completion test problems".
"the children who received the non-symbolic, numerical addition task were more accurate on symbolic mathematics problems than those who received the brightness comparison task (t (46) = −2.814, p < .01), whereas there was no difference between the two groups on the test of sentence completion test problems (t (46) = −.480, p = .633)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Brief practice on non-symbolic approximate numerical addition or comparison tasks speeds subsequent exact symbolic arithmetic in first graders compared with non-numerical magnitude tasks — related
- In Experiment 1, the numerical comparison group was more accurate on symbolic arithmetic than the line-length addition group, the only pairwise accuracy difference — related
- Engaging symbolic number representations does not by itself prime subsequent symbolic arithmetic: second test-set performance declined in both training groups — reports the opposite
- The training-condition effect on symbolic arithmetic speed persists after controlling for training task reaction time and accuracy — related
- Both numerical training conditions improve magnitude processing more than a story-understanding control condition — related
- Symbolic number magnitude training, but not non-symbolic training, significantly improves preschoolers' exact arithmetic — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
ans-practice-effect-specific-to-mathematics |
title |
Non-symbolic numerical addition practice improves accuracy on symbolic arithmetic but not sentence completion, showing the practice effect is specific to mathematics |
description |
Non-symbolic numerical addition practice improves accuracy on symbolic arithmetic but not sentence completion, showing the practice effect is specific to mathematics |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2014 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — hyde-2014 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.