We addressed three research gaps related to Mental imagery (MI) in children. First, MI relies on depictive representations in adults, however evidence for a depictive theory of MI in children is lacking. Second, researchers have employed a four sub-component model (Image Generation, Image Maintenance, Mental Rotation, Image Scanning) to investigate the development of MI, however findings are mixed. Finally, shared mechanisms between MI and Visual Working Memory (VWM) are suggested in adult literature, yet this relationship has not been tested directly in children. Using a novel battery of MI tasks, we found evidence for depictive representations in both Experiment 1 (adults: N=58) and Experiment 2 (children age 6-11 years and adults: N=150) in that participants of all ages generated and maintained images of high vividness more often than low vividness. Moreover, we found participants make similar errors when estimating varying distances in both visual perception and mental imagery: participants of all ages underestimated distance, and this increased with increasing distance, thus providing further evidence to support a depictive theory in both children and adults. To address our second and third research questions, we report evidence to broadly support a separable-component model of MI and a dissociation between MI and VWM in both children and adults (Experiment 2). Our findings extend current understanding of development of MI from childhood to adulthood and broadly suggest the structure of MI in childhood mirrors that in adults. Moreover, the findings highlight the importance of considering individual differences in format of representations and strategy use when deciphering the relationship between MI and VWM in both children and adults.

No abstract

This document is about how children develop spatial reasoning in early childhood (birth to 7 years) and how practitioners working with young children can support this. Spatial reasoning is a vital and often overlooked aspect of mathematics. So this toolkit, which is informed by extensive review of research in this areas, will support practitioners to enhance children's early mathematical learning. For the full Spatial Reasoning toolkit: https://earlymaths.org/spatial-reasoning/

Background: There is a growing evidence base for the importance of spatial reasoning for the development of mathematics. However, the extent to which this translates into practice is unknown. Aims: We aimed to understand practitioners' perspectives on their understanding of spatial reasoning, the extent to which they recognize and implement spatial activities in their practice, and the barriers and opportunities to support spatial reasoning in the practice setting. Sample: Study 1 (questionnaire) included 94 participants and Study 2 (focus groups) consisted of nine participants. Participants were educational practitioners working with children from birth to 7 years. Methods: The study was mixed methods and included a questionnaire (Study 1) and a series of focus groups (Study 2). Results: We found that whilst practitioners engage in a variety of activities that support spatial reasoning, most practitioners reported little confidence in their understanding of what spatial reasoning is. Conclusion: Informative and accessible resources are needed to broaden understanding of the definition of spatial reasoning and to outline opportunities to support spatial reasoning.

Evidence for associations between spatial skills and mathematics has led to the argument that spatial visualization plays a role in mathematical calculation. However, there is no single accepted definition of what spatial visualization encompasses. Here, we investigated spatial visualization in the context of a mental imagery framework. We applied a component model of mental imagery, involving image generation, image maintenance, image transformation (measured using mental rotation), and image scanning, to determine associations between each component and mathematical calculation ability in primary school children (N = 92, age 6-11 years). We found that, after accounting for age, only mental rotation explained significant variation in mathematical calculation. Our findings advance theoretical understanding by demonstrating that spatial visualization definitions, applied to mathematics, should be refined to focus on transformation. This highlights the practical implication that transformation strategies are promising targets for future intervention work, rather than broad visualization strategies. Spatial Thinking and MathematicsTasks used to capture spatial visualization ability involve spatial transformations of mental representations, for example, mental rotation or mental paper folding (Hawes & Ansari, 2020). However, definitions of spatial visualization sometimes include a reference to visual representations, as well

We addressed two research gaps related to mental imagery (MI) in children. First, research has investigated the development of MI employing a component model (image generation, image maintenance, mental rotation, image scanning), however knowledge of how components develop and their associations throughout childhood (age 6-11 years) is incomplete. Second, despite positive associations in adults, the relationship between MI and visual working memory (VWM) has not been investigated in children. Using a novel MI task battery sensitive to the visual precision of MI, we found evidence for a separable-component model of MI in children, with some components becoming integrated in adulthood. Contrary to expectations, there were no significant associations between components of MI and VWM in either childhood or in adults. Our findings extend current understanding of development of MI and highlight the importance of considering individual differences in strategy-use when establishing the relationship between MI and VWM.

Mental imagery (MI) is the ability to generate visual phenomena in the absence of sensory input. MI is often likened to visual working memory (VWM): the ability to maintain and manipulate visual representations. How MI is recruited during VWM is yet to be established. In a modified orientation change-discrimination task, we examined how behavioural (proportion correct) and neural (contralateral delay activity; CDA) correlates of precision and capacity map onto subjective ratings of vividness and number of items in MI within a VWM task. During the maintenance period, seventeen participants estimated the vividness of their MI or the number of items held in MI while they were instructed to focus on either precision or capacity of their representation and to retain stimuli at varying set sizes (1, 2 and 4). Vividness and number ratings varied over set sizes; however, subjective ratings and behavioral performance were not correlated, except for vividness rating at set size 1. There were no statistical differences in CDA between reported high and low vividness and non-divergent (reported the probed number of items in mind) or divergent (reported number of items diverged from probed) rating trials. We observed greater CDA in higher compared to lower set sizes. Participants were more accurate in low set sizes compared to higher set sizes and in fine (15º) orientation changes compared to coarse (35º) orientation changes. This evidence indicates that the subjective sensory experience of precision and capacity in MI may be distinct from the visual precision and capacity of VWM.

•Background: The prevalence of motor impairment is high in ADHD, but we do not know if this stems from infancy.•Aims: 1) to compare the acquisition of motor milestones across three groups: Typically Developing (TD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD); 2) to determine the relationship between current motor ability and ADHD characteristics in children with ADHD. •Methods and Procedures: The parents of children aged 8-16 years (ADHD, N=100; DCD, N=66; TD, N=40) completed three online questionnaires: Motor milestone questionnaire; Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ’07) (concurrent motor ability); Conners 3 Parent Rating Scale Long Form (ADHD characteristics). •Outcome and Results: When considered as a group, the ADHD group achieved motor milestones within a typical timeframe, despite concurrent motor impairments. Motor ability was not associated with ADHD characteristics. Latent Profile Analysis demonstrated that 56% of the ADHD group and 48% of the DCD group shared the same profile of motor milestone achievement, concurrent motor ability and ADHD characteristics. •Outcomes and Conclusions: Unlike children with DCD, the motor impairment often observed in ADHD is not evident from infancy. It is also not part of the ADHD phenotype. Individual differences analysis demonstrated the broad heterogeneity of the ADHD phenotype.