Non-symbolic training improves collection comparison at ratios 1:2, 2:3 and 3:4, while symbolic training improves only ratio 1:2¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i3large
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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 i3 The non-symbolic group improved collection comparison performance for ratios 1:2, 2:3 and 3:4; the symbolic group improved only for ratio 1:2. → Honoré N 2016
Evidence¶
Honoré N 2016¶
Honoré N, Noël M-P (2016) Improving Preschoolers' Arithmetic through Number Magnitude Training: The Impact of Non-Symbolic and Symbolic Training. PLoS ONE 11(11): e0166685. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166685
q3 · i3 · causal · r2
Corrected contrasts in the collection comparison task showed the non-symbolic group improved at ratios 1:2 (t(50) = 4.94; p<.001, η² = 0.328), 2:3 and 3:4, while "the symbolic group showed improvement for ratio 1:2" only.
"the non-symbolic group improved its performance for ratios 1:2, 2:3 and 3:4 and the symbolic group showed improvement for ratio 1:2, while there was no change of performance in the control group"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Accuracy on approximate addition decreases as ratio approaches 1, with a stronger ratio effect on the non-symbolic task — related
- Children succeed at non-symbolic approximate addition above chance with a ratio effect, without relying on non-numerical strategies — related
- Ratio-effect scores correlated with mathematics achievement in Experiment 1 but not in Experiment 2 with easier ratios — related
- In a number comparison task, adults outperform 6- to 7-year-old children in accuracy, Arabic numerals are easier than dot arrays, and easy 0.5 ratios are easier than difficult 0.8 ratios — related
- Neither numerical training significantly improves Arabic number comparison performance — related
- 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
- Children can learn the meanings of novel number symbols through an artificial symbol learning paradigm, performing above chance on a subsequent symbolic comparison task — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
nonsymbolic-training-improves-collection-comparison-ratios |
title |
Non-symbolic training improves collection comparison at ratios 1:2, 2:3 and 3:4, while symbolic training improves only ratio 1:2 |
description |
Non-symbolic training improves collection comparison at ratios 1:2, 2:3 and 3:4, while symbolic training improves only ratio 1:2 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2016 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — honoré-n-2016 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.