Distinctive Role of Symbolic Number Sense in Mediating the Mathematical Abilities of Children with Autism

Abstract

Despite reports of mathematical talent in autism spectrum disorders (ASD), little is known about basic number processing abilities in affected children. We investigated number sense, the ability to rapidly assess quantity information, in 36 children with ASD and 61 typically developing controls. Numerical acuity was assessed using symbolic (Arabic numerals) as well as non-symbolic (dot array) formats. We found significant impairments in non-symbolic acuity in children with ASD, but symbolic acuity was intact. Symbolic acuity mediated the relationship between non-symbolic acuity and mathematical abilities only in children with ASD, indicating a distinctive role for symbolic number sense in the acquisition of mathematical proficiency in this group. Our findings suggest that symbolic systems may help children with ASD organize imprecise information.

Quantitative Analysis of Heterogeneity in Academic Achievement of Children With Autism

“…On average, children with ASD ( n = 114) performed in the normal to above normal range across multiple measures of cognitive abilities and academic achievement (Table S1 in the Supplemental Material). This result shows that as a group, our sample of children with ASD has normal math, reading, and cognitive abilities, which is consistent with the literature on children with ASD (Hiniker, Rosenberg-Lee, & Menon, 2016; Iuculano et al, 2014). Relative to their age- and FSIQ-matched peers in the control group, the ASD group was comparable with matched controls on performance IQ (PIQ), measures of WM, and word reading (Table S1 in the Supplemental Material).…”

Disentangling the Research Literature onNumber Sense: Three Constructs, One Name

“…These girls had very low acuity in magnitude discrimination and appeared to only be guessing at which quantity was greater. Additionally, Hiniker et al (2016) found that students with autism spectrum disorder had lower acuity levels than their typically developing peers. However, the ANS was not found to be as predictive of their mathematical abilities as symbolic number understanding (Hiniker et al, 2016).…”

“…Additionally, Hiniker et al (2016) found that students with autism spectrum disorder had lower acuity levels than their typically developing peers. However, the ANS was not found to be as predictive of their mathematical abilities as symbolic number understanding (Hiniker et al, 2016). Symbolic number understanding was also found to be a higher predictor of mathematical skill than the ANS for typically developing children (Sasanguie et al, 2013).…”

The Impacts of Mathematics Instructional Strategy on Students with Autism: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Twenty-two empirical studies apply visual teaching styles, such as (a) concrete-representational-abstract; (b) mathematical word problem-solving interventions; (c) nonsymbolic and symbolic number word; (d) schematic approach; (e) writing equations on paper; (f) real-life problems; (g) using materials that are both concrete (physical objects) and virtual (3-D objects on the computer); (h) video modelling package based on iPad; (i) number line mapping; (j) strategic schema-based instruction; (k) modified schema-based instruction; (l) flash cards; (m) numerical competencies; (n) mathematics based on conceptual approach; (o) the role of specific symbolic difference; (p) special cognitive criteria; (q) e-book education; (r) executive functioning; (s) computer-aided instruction; (t) interactive whiteboard and discrete trial training; (u) mathematical facts mastery; and (v) metacognitive, based on the computer. Interestingly, SBI is the most frequently used instructional strategy (Aagten-Murphy et al, 2015;Bae, 2013;Bae et al, 2015;Bouck et al, 2014;Burney, 2015;Casner, 2016;Cox & Root, 2018;Cravalho et al, 2014;Delisio et al, 2018;Desoete, 2012;Fries, 2013;Göransson, 2016;Hansen, 2014;Henning, 2018;Hiniker, 2016;Jowett et al, 2012;Kasap & Ergenekon, 2017;Maajeeny, 2017;Maras et al, 2017;Oie, 2016;Rasmussen & Bisanz, 2011;Rockwell, 2012;Rockwell et al, 2011;Shamir & Baruch, 2012;Titeca et al, 2014;Toll et al, 2011).…”