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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Adults were more accurate than children, Arabic numerals more accurate than dot arrays, and 0.5 ratio trials more accurate than 0.8 ratio trials. → Cantlon Jessica F. 2009 q3 i? The numerical ratio effect on accuracy was larger for dot arrays (15%) than for Arabic numerals (3%). → Cantlon Jessica F. 2009 (2)

Evidence¶

Cantlon Jessica F. 2009¶

Cantlon Jessica F., Libertus Melissa E., Pinel Philippe, Dehaene Stanislas, Brannon Elizabeth M., Pelphrey Kevin A. (2009). The Neural Development of an Abstract Concept of Number. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.21159

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Behavioral accuracy analysis of 14 children and 14 adults performing symbolic and nonsymbolic number comparisons in the scanner. The article reports that "adults performed more accurately than children (93% vs. 80%)" and that the easy 0.5 ratio beat the difficult 0.8 ratio (91% vs. 82%).

"An ANOVA with factors of Group (children, adults) × Notation (Arabic, dots) × Ratio (0.5, 0.8) with a repeated measure of accuracy revealed main effects of group [F(1, 52) = 35.3, p < .001], notation [F(1, 52) = 9.28, p < .005], and ratio [F(1, 52) = 92.24, p < .001]."

Cantlon Jessica F. 2009 (2)¶

Cantlon Jessica F., Libertus Melissa E., Pinel Philippe, Dehaene Stanislas, Brannon Elizabeth M., Pelphrey Kevin A. (2009). The Neural Development of an Abstract Concept of Number. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.21159

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Same accuracy ANOVA in the behavioral results section: the notation × ratio interaction showed a "greater effect of ratio in the dot arrays condition than in the Arabic numerals condition" (15% vs. 3%).

"The only significant interaction was between notation and ratio, owing to a greater effect of ratio in the dot arrays condition than in the Arabic numerals condition (dot arrays ratio effect = 15%; Arabic numerals ratio effect = 3%)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Preschoolers' ANS task performance follows Weber's Law: accuracy decreases as numerical ratio approaches equality, and improves with age over six months — related
• Children and adults engage a common network of occipito-temporal, precentral, and superior parietal cortices during numerical judgments of both Arabic numerals and dot arrays — related
• Neither numerical training significantly improves Arabic number comparison performance — related
• Non-symbolic training improves collection comparison at ratios 1:2, 2:3 and 3:4, while symbolic training improves only ratio 1:2 — related
• Response times in number comparison show group, notation, and ratio main effects, with a larger ratio effect for dot arrays than Arabic numerals — related
• The numerical ratio effect in BOLD activity appears in superior parietal cortex in adults but in inferior frontal gyrus, precentral gyrus, and thalamus in children, with no group-level parietal ratio effect in children — related
• Accuracy on approximate addition decreases as ratio approaches 1, with a stronger ratio effect on the non-symbolic task — related
• Children perform better with written numerals than with base-10 blocks or dot arrays on multidigit tasks — related
• Numerosity comparison accuracy is ratio-dependent across grades three to five — related
• Children succeed at non-symbolic approximate addition above chance with a ratio effect, without relying on non-numerical strategies — related