Math relies on mastery and integration of a wide range of simpler numerical processes and concepts. Recent work has identified several numerical competencies that predict variation in math ability. We examined the unique relations between eight basic numerical skills and early arithmetic ability in a large sample (N = 1391) of children across grades 1-6. In grades 1-2, children's ability to judge the relative magnitude of numerical symbols was most predictive of early arithmetic skills. The unique contribution of children's ability to assess ordinality in numerical symbols steadily increased across grades, overtaking all other predictors by grade 6. We found no evidence that children's ability to judge the relative magnitude of approximate, nonsymbolic numbers was uniquely predictive of arithmetic ability at any grade. Overall, symbolic number processing was more predictive of arithmetic ability than nonsymbolic number processing, though the relative importance of symbolic number ability appears to shift from cardinal to ordinal processing.

No abstract

Math can be difficult, and for those with high levels of mathematics-anxiety (HMAs), math is associated with tension, apprehension, and fear. But what underlies the feelings of dread effected by math anxiety? Are HMAs’ feelings about math merely psychological epiphenomena, or is their anxiety grounded in simulation of a concrete, visceral sensation – such as pain – about which they have every right to feel anxious? We show that, when anticipating an upcoming math-task, the higher one’s math anxiety, the more one increases activity in regions associated with visceral threat detection, and often the experience of pain itself (bilateral dorso-posterior insula). Interestingly, this relation was not seen during math performance, suggesting that it is not that math itself hurts; rather, the anticipation of math is painful. Our data suggest that pain network activation underlies the intuition that simply anticipating a dreaded event can feel painful. These results may also provide a potential neural mechanism to explain why HMAs tend to avoid math and math-related situations, which in turn can bias HMAs away from taking math classes or even entire math-related career paths.

Are numerals estranged from a sense of the actual quantities they represent? We demonstrate that, irrespective of numerical size or distance, direct comparison of the relative quantities represented by symbolic and nonsymbolic formats leads to performance markedly worse than when comparing 2 nonsymbolic quantities (Experiment 1). Experiment 2 shows that this effect cannot be attributed to differences in perceptual processing streams. Experiment 3 shows that there is no additional cost of mixing 2 formats that are both symbolic; that is, the decrement in mixing formats is specific to mixing symbolic and nonsymbolic representations. In sum, we show that accessing a sense of how much a numerical symbol actually represents is a surprisingly difficult and nontrivial process. Our data are consistent with the view that numerical symbols operate primarily as an associative system in which relations between symbols come to overshadow those between symbols and their quantity referents.