Magnitude comparison in preschoolers: what counts? Influence of perceptual variables

Evidence of the impact of visuo-spatial processing on magnitude representation in 22q11.2 microdeletion syndrome

“…shown that 3 year-old children performed at random on a numerosity judgment task in conditions that controlled for surface area, indicating that their "numerical" judgment is based on surface processing (Rousselle et al, 2004). Later on, the influence of parallel surface processing decreases (Rousselle & Noël, 2008) but even adults continue to be sensitive to perceptual dimensions in their numerical judgments (Gebuis & Reynvoet, 2012a, 2012bSzucs, Nobes, Devine, Gabriel, & Gebuis, 2013).…”

“…Indeed, a large number of studies have shown that numerical judgments are highly influenced by the visual perceptual properties of the stimulus (e.g. density, sum of perimeter, surface area, length, size…) in children and adults (Dormal & Pesenti, 2007;Gebuis, Cohen Kadosh, de Haan, & Henik, 2009;Rousselle & Noël, 2008;Rousselle, Palmers, & Noël, 2004). Some studies even fail to find any evidence of a sensitivity to numerical differences when the perceptual variables, which naturally covary with numerosities, are strictly controlled for (Clearfield & Mix, 1999, 2001Feigenson, Carey, & Spelke, 2002;Mix, 2002;Rousselle et al, 2004).…”

“…density, sum of perimeter, surface area, length, size…) in children and adults (Dormal & Pesenti, 2007;Gebuis, Cohen Kadosh, de Haan, & Henik, 2009;Rousselle & Noël, 2008;Rousselle, Palmers, & Noël, 2004). Some studies even fail to find any evidence of a sensitivity to numerical differences when the perceptual variables, which naturally covary with numerosities, are strictly controlled for (Clearfield & Mix, 1999, 2001Feigenson, Carey, & Spelke, 2002;Mix, 2002;Rousselle et al, 2004). Actually, much behavioral and electrophysiological evidence suggests that numerical magnitude processing of large numerosities relies on the integration of multiple perceptual cues (Gebuis, Cohen Kadosh, & Gevers, 2016;Gebuis & Reynvoet, 2012a, 2012bHurewitz, Gelman, & Schnitzer, 2006).…”

Exploring the impact of phonological awareness, visual–spatial working memory, and preschool quantity–number competencies on mathematics achievement in elementary school: Findings from a 3-year longitudinal study

“…As some researchers assume, this implies that infants can already differentiate between discrete quantities (see Antell & Keating, 1983;Bijeljac-Babic, Bertoncini, & Mehler, 1993;Huntley-Fenner & Cannon, 2000;Starkey & Cooper, 1980;Wynn, 1992; for large numerosities: Xu, Spelke, & Goddard, 2005). Others believe that infants only differentiate between the spatial extent of quantities but not between discrete amounts (see Clearfield & Mix, 1999Feigenson, Carey, & Spelke, 2002;Mix, Huttenlocher, & Levine, 1996Rousselle, Palmers, & Noël, 2004;Simon, Hespos, & Rochat, 1995; for small numerosities: Xu, Spelke, & Goddard, 2005). As indicated by the first level of the theoretical model, we assume that children are at least able to differentiate between indiscrete amounts (quantity discrimination).…”

How might the discrepancy in the effects of perceptual variables on numerosity judgment be reconciled?

“…Different processes at the response stage could produce different outcomes for those tasks in numerosity judgments. For example, the recent study by Sophian and Chu (2008) demonstrated that the accuracy of verbal estimates of the numerosities of arrays made upon completion Ginsburg, 1991;Ginsburg & Nicholls, 1988;Krueger, 1972;Shuman & Spelke, 2006;Sophian & Chu, 2008), as well as in young children (Clearfield & Mix, 1999;Cordes & Brannon, 2008Mix, Huttenlocher, & Levine, 2002;Rousselle, Palmers, & Noel, 2004).…”