Symbolic Number Skills Predict Growth in Nonsymbolic Number Skills in Kindergarteners

Abstract

There is currently considerable discussion about the relative influences of evolutionary and cultural factors in the development of early numerical skills. In particular, there has been substantial debate and study of the relationship between approximate, nonverbal (approximate magnitude system, AMS) and exact, symbolic (symbolic number system, SNS) representations of number. Here we examined several hypotheses concerning whether, in the earliest stages of formal education, AMS abilities predict growth in SNS abilities, or the other way around. In addition to tasks involving symbolic (Arabic numerals) and non-symbolic (dot arrays) number comparisons, we also tested children's ability to translate between the two systems (i.e., mixed-format comparison). Our data included a sample of 539 Kindergarten children (mean=5.17yrs, SD=0.29yrs), with AMS, SNS and mixed comparison skills assessed at the beginning and end of the academic year. In this way, we provide, to the best of our knowledge, the most comprehensive test to date of the direction of influence between the AMS and SNS in early formal schooling. Results were more consistent with the view that SNS abilities at the beginning of Kindergarten lay the foundation for improvement in both AMS abilities and the ability to translate between the two systems. Importantly, we found no evidence to support the reverse. We conclude that, once one acquires a very basic grasp of exact number symbols, it is this understanding of exact number (and perhaps repeated practice therewith) that facilitates growth in the AMS. Though the precise mechanism remains to be understood, these data challenge the widely held view that the AMS scaffolds the acquisition of the SNS.

The relation between subitizable symbolic and non‐symbolic number processing over the kindergarten school year

“…More specifically, some researchers have proposed that humans acquire the meaning of number symbols by mapping them directly onto their non-symbolic counterparts, thereby forging a direct link between the preexisting AMS and the SNS by which the two systems become systematically integrated over developmental time (Feigenson, Dehaene, & Spelke, 2004;Piazza, 2011). However, a growing body of behavioral and neuroimaging research has begun to challenge the notion of a shared representational system for symbolic and non-symbolic processing (Bulthé, Smedt, & Op de Beeck, 2014;Lyons, Ansari, & Beilock, 2012Lyons, Bugden, Zheng, Jesus, & Ansari, 2018;Matejko & Ansari, 2016;Mussolin, Nys, Content, & Leybaert, 2014;Sasanguie, Defever, Maertens, & Reynvoet, 2014). More specifically, some have suggested that symbolic number skills develop independently from the AMS in childhood Matejko & Ansari, 2016;Mussolin et al, 2014;Sasanguie et al, 2014) and that these two systems remain distinct in adulthood (Lyons, Ansari, & Beilock, 2012).…”