Behavioral nonsymbolic numerosity acuity (RT and accuracy ratio effects) does not reliably predict formal math achievement in typical to high-achieving participants aged 6 to 34¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? Neither RT nor accuracy behavioral ratio effects significantly predicted the WJ-III Broad Math index, its four subtests, reading achievement, or full scale IQ in the full sample or any age group. → Haist Frank 2015
Evidence¶
Haist Frank 2015¶
Haist Frank, Wazny Jarnet H., Toomarian Elizabeth, Adamo Maha. (2015). Development of brain systems for nonsymbolic numerosity and the relationship to formal math academic achievement. Human brain mapping. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22666
q3 · i? · associational · r2
Cross-sectional fMRI study of 44 typically developing participants (14 children, 14 adolescents, 16 adults) performing a nonsymbolic dot comparison task; behavioral ratio effects were correlated with WJ-III achievement. The article reports "No significant relationship was found between the RT BRE" and any achievement or IQ measure.
"No significant relationship was found between the RT BRE and the main Broad Math Index score, the four math achievement tests contributing to the Broad Math index, reading achievement, or full scale IQ, ps ≥ .326."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Behavioral ratio sensitivity for reaction time increases with age, with adults showing greater RT ratio sensitivity than children — related
- Neither numerosity processing nor figure matching predicts general mathematical achievement — related
- A reliable positive relationship between parietal NRE and math achievement appears only in children, not adolescents or adults — related
- Numerosity comparison accuracy is ratio-dependent across grades three to five — related
- Ratio-effect scores correlated with mathematics achievement in Experiment 1 but not in Experiment 2 with easier ratios — related
- Kindergarten children's non-symbolic addition performance correlates with end-of-year mathematics achievement, independent of literacy (Experiment 1) — related
- ANS acuity correlates with later number sets fluency but does not emerge as a unique predictor once symbolic knowledge is controlled — related
- Non-symbolic addition performance correlates with mathematics achievement in a new sample, surviving controls for verbal intelligence and literacy (Experiment 2) — related
- Number knowledge and numerosity discrimination are unique longitudinal predictors of arithmetic development over the first year of formal education — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
behavioral-numerosity-acuity-does-not-predict-formal-math |
title |
Behavioral nonsymbolic numerosity acuity (RT and accuracy ratio effects) does not reliably predict formal math achievement in typical to high-achieving participants aged 6 to 34 |
description |
Behavioral nonsymbolic numerosity acuity (RT and accuracy ratio effects) does not reliably predict formal math achievement in typical to high-achieving participants aged 6 to 34 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2015 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — haist-frank-2015 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.