Judgement of discrete and continuous quantity in adults: Number counts!

Abstract

Three experiments involving a Stroop-like paradigm were conducted. In Experiment 1, adults received a number comparison task in which large sets of dots, orthogonally varying along a discrete dimension (number of dots) and a continuous dimension (cumulative area), were presented. Incongruent trials were processed more slowly and with less accuracy than congruent trials, suggesting that continuous dimensions such as cumulative area are automatically processed and integrated during a discrete quantity judgement task. Experiment 2, in which adults were asked to perform area comparison on the same stimuli, revealed the reciprocal interference from number on the continuous quantity judgements. Experiment 3, in which participants received both the number and area comparison tasks, confirmed the results of Experiments 1 and 2. Contrasting with earlier statements, the results support the view that number acts as a more salient cue than continuous dimensions in adults. Furthermore, the individual predisposition to automatically access approximate number representations was found to correlate significantly with adults' exact arithmetical skills.

Assessing the Approximate Number System: no relation between numerical comparison and estimation tasks

“…This result converges with previous findings showing that individuals with better arithmetic skills show less interference of incongruent total area in numerosity comparison (Guillaume et ASSESSING THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER SYSTEM al., 2013) and more interference of numerosity in aggregated area comparison (Nys & Content, 2012). It is also in line with the claim from Gilmore and colleagues (2013) that inhibiting irrelevant cues might actually be the correlating factor between performance in discrimination tasks and math ability.…”

“…However, the existence of an intrinsic interplay between continuous visual properties and discrete numerical ones does not necessarily imply that participants do not rely at all on numerical information to judge the numerosity of dot arrays. Nys and Content (2012) and Guillaume and colleagues (2013) reported that visual cues indeed affected performance in the numerical comparison task but also, more importantly, that discrete numerical information impacted the continuous judgment in a non-numerical aggregate surface comparison task. Consequently, we cannot totally exclude any numerical processing in numerical judgment tasks.…”

“…We thus evaluated arithmetic fluency (i.e., the ability to quickly solve arithmetic operations), which is highly critical for efficient arithmetic performance (see for instance, Ramos-Christian, Schleser, & Varn, 2008). To do so, we created a paper-and-pencil test, adapted from the Tempo-Test Rekenen (De Vos, 1992; as in Nys & Content, 2012;Sasanguie et al, 2013). This adaptation is a timed test on a single sheet composed of five different columns.…”

“…In recent years, many studies reported the existence of a relationship between arithmetic performance or math ability, and the value of the Weber fraction, both in children (e.g., Libertus, Feigenson, & Halberda, 2011;Inglis, Attridge, Batchelor, & Gilmore, 2011, experiment 1) and in adults (e.g., DeWind & Brannon, 2012;Guillaume, Nys, Mussolin, & Content, 2013;Halberda, Ly, Wilmer, Naiman, & Germine, 2012;Libertus, Odic, & Halberda, 2012;Nys & Content, 2012;Nys, Ventura, Fernandes, Querido, Leybaert, & Content, 2013). Notwithstanding these positive findings, contradictory results were also reported, with several studies failing to observe any significant correlation between ANS acuity (computed from such comparison tasks) and arithmetic competence in children Sasanguie, Göbel, Moll, Smets, Reynvoet, 2013;see also De Smedt, Noël, Gilmore, & Ansari, 2013, for a short review) or in adults (e.g., Castronovo & Göbel, 2012, experiment 1;Inglis et al, 2011, experiment 2;Price, Palmer, Battista, & Ansari, 2012).…”

Indexing the approximate number system

“…Fuhs & McNeil, 2013;Gebuis, Cohen Kadosh, de Haan, & Henik, 2009;Gebuis & Reynvoet, 2011bGilmore et al, 2013;Hurewitz, Gelman & Schnitzer, 2006;Nys & Content, 2012;Verguts & Fias, 2004;Zorzi & Butterworth, 1999).…”