Is there really a link between exact‐number knowledge and approximate number system acuity in young children?

Abstract

Although everyone perceives approximate numerosities, some people make more accurate estimates than others. The accuracy of this estimation is called approximate number system (ANS) acuity. Recently, several studies have reported that individual differences in young children's ANS acuity are correlated with their knowledge of exact numbers such as the word ‘six’ (Mussolin et al., 2012, Trends Neurosci. Educ., 1, 21; Shusterman et al., 2011, Connecting early number word knowledge and approximate number system acuity; Wagner & Johnson, 2011, Cognition, 119, 10; see also Abreu‐Mendoza et al., 2013, Front. Psychol., 4, 1). This study argues that this correlation should not be trusted. It seems to be an artefact of the procedure used to assess ANS acuity in children. The correlation arises because (1) some experimental designs inadvertently allow children to answer correctly based on the size (rather than the number) of dots in the display and/or (2) young children with little exact‐number knowledge may not understand the phrase ‘more dots’ to mean numerically more. When the task is modified to make sure that children respond on the basis of numerosity, the correlation between ANS acuity and exact‐number knowledge in normally developing children disappears.

Kindergartners’ fluent processing of symbolic numerical magnitude is predicted by their cardinal knowledge and implicit understanding of arithmetic 2 years earlier

“…Based on previous studies, these children are at high risk for long-term difficulties learning mathematics in school (Geary et al, 2012). As noted, these results reinforce the importance of cardinal knowledge as a core part of the foundation for children’s emerging mathematical competence (Chu et al, 2015; Negen & Sarnecka, 2014; vanMarle et al, 2014), and indicate that interventions to improve this knowledge in at risk preschool children will better prepare them for formal schooling.…”

“…It may be that exact, symbolic number knowledge and nonsymbolic intuitions of number are unrelated (Matejko & Ansari, 2016; Negen & Sarnecka, 2014). It is also possible that preschoolers’ ANS acuity indirectly contributes to later fluency of processing Arabic numerals, because preschoolers’ learning of the cardinal principle appears to be supported, at least in part, by ANS acuity (Chu et al, 2015; vanMarle et al, 2014).…”

“…These early findings were promising; however, the results from subsequent studies have been more mixed (Bugden & Ansari, 2011; De Smedt & Gilmore, 2011; De Smedt, Noël, Gilmore, & Ansari, 2013; Lyons, Ansari, & Beilock, 2012; Matejko & Ansari, 2016; Negen & Sarnecka, 2014; Rousselle & Noël, 2007; Sasangui, Defever, Maertens, & Reynovet, 2014). The gist of these latter studies is that young children’s general mathematics achievement may be more strongly related to the speed and accuracy with which they can compare or manipulate (e.g., order) the magnitudes associated with Arabic numerals than to performance on measures of ANS acuity (for meta-analyses see Chen & Li, 2014; Fazio, Bailey, Thompson, & Seigler, 2014).…”

Symbolic number skills predict growth in nonsymbolic number skills in kindergarteners.

“…Instead the SNS develops independently from the AMS; part of this development permits improved symbolic comparison performance, which transfers at the task level to the mixed-and dot-comparison tasks (for a similar suggestion regarding how acquisition of number-word meanings might influence the AMS, see Shusterman et al, 2016). do not yet have the cardinality principle are completely at chance on a nonsymbolic comparison task (Negen & Sarnecka, 2015). The notion here is that only when children have an understanding of the symbolic cardinal label of a set do they understand how to perform a nonsymbolic comparison task.…”

Early Predictors for Basic Numerical and Magnitude Competencies in Preschool Children—Are They the Same or Different regarding Specific Subgroups?

“…two and then three, weeks or month can go by. Once the children figure out the cardinal principle for the smaller numbers (up to three or four) they generalize this principle to the rest of their counting list (Negen & Sarnecka, 2015).…”