Nonsymbolic comparison tasks are widely used to measure children’s and adults’ Approximate
Number System (ANS) acuity. Recent evidence has demonstrated that task performance can
be influenced by changes to the visual characteristics of the stimuli, leading some researchers to suggest it is unlikely that an ANS exists that can extract number information independently of the visual characteristics of the arrays. Here we analysed 124 children’s and 120 adults’ dot comparison accuracy scores from three separate studies to investigate individual and developmental differences in how numerical and visual information contribute to nonsymbolic
numerosity judgements. We found that, in contrast to adults, the majority of children did not use numerical information over and above visual cue information to compare quantities. This finding was consistent across different studies. The results have implications for research on the relationship between dot comparison performance and formal mathematics achievement. Specifically, if most children’s performance on dot comparison tasks can be accounted for without the involvement of numerical information, it seems unlikely that observed correlations with mathematics achievement stem from ANS acuity alone.
Funding
This research was supported by a Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship (C.G.),
and a Royal Society Worshipful Company of Actuaries Research Fellowship (M.I.).
History
School
Science
Department
Mathematics Education Centre
Published in
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Citation
CLAYTON, S., INGLIS, M. and GILMORE, C.K., 2018. Developmental differences in approaches to nonsymbolic comparison tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72 (3), pp.436-445.
This work is made available according to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. Full details of this licence are available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Acceptance date
2017-12-18
Publication date
2018-02-08
Notes
This paper was published in the journal Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology and the definitive published version is available at https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818755296.