How do symbolic and non-symbolic numerical magnitude processing skills relate to individual differences in children's mathematical skills? A review of evidence from brain and behavior

By B. De Smedt, Marie-Pascale Noël, Camilla Gilmore, Daniel Ansari. 2013

612 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1f23a14fd7538b90d6f1b795d7a6894b2c783f24

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Inhibition in dot comparison tasks (2015, neutral): “ Several researchers have highlighted that the link between ANS task performance and mathematics is poorly understood (e.g. Chen and Li 2014; De Smedt et al 2013; Price, Palmer, Battista and Ansari 2012).”
Why numerical symbols count in the development of mathematical skills: evidence from brain and behavior (2016, background): “A recent systematic review of research on school-age children suggested that symbolic numerical comparison has been found to be a more reliable predictor of mathematics achievement than nonsymbolic magnitude comparison [34].”
Core numerical skills for learning mathematics in children aged five to eight years – a working model for educators (2016, background): “However, there is a continuing debate on whether the mental representation of the magnitude of symbolic numbers is a more important process as a predictor than representations of non-symbolic magnitudes (De Smedt et al. 2013).”
Enhancing arithmetic in pre-schoolers with comparison or number line estimation training: Does it matter? ☆ (2016, background): “…are causally related, several training studies were conducted to investigate whether mathematical achievement, in several studies assessed with an arithmetic test, improved after training number sense abilities such as comparison or number line estimation (for a review, see De Smedt et al., 2013).”
Neurocognitive Architectures and the Nonsymbolic Foundations of Fractions Understanding (2016, positive): “…less strongly than do symbolic number skills (e.g., Chu et al. 2013; Lyons et al., 2014), suggesting that symbolic representations and the strength of the links between the ANS and symbolic representations are important for predicting mathematical ability (see de Smedt et al., 2013 for a review).”
An Integrative Theory of Numerical Development. (2014, background): “…two including meta-analyses, indicate that relations between ANS acuity and math achievement are weaker and less consistent than relations between representations of symbolic numerical magnitude and math achievement (Chen & Li, 2014; De Smedt et al., 2013; Fazio, Bailey, Thompson, & Siegler, 2014).”
The Routledge international handbook of dyscalculia and mathematical learning difficulties (2014, positive): “…preschoolers’ maths skills (e.g., Fuhs & McNeil, 2013; Libertus et al., 2011, 2013a, 2013b), which make it difficult to determine the specific maths skills associated with the different core number abilities (De Smedt et al., 2013; Lonnemann et al., 2013; Vanbinst, Ghesquière, & De Smedt, 2012).”
Enhancing Children's Spatial and Numerical Skills through a Dynamic Spatial Approach to Early Geometry Instruction: Effects of a 32-Week Intervention (2017, background): “As such, early interventions aimed at improving this skill are highly desirable (De Smedt et al., 2013).”
Nonsymbolic and symbolic magnitude comparison skills as longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement (2017, methodology): “However, with the start of formal education (grade 1), symbolic processing would take over (De Smedt et al., 2013; Lyons et al., 2014; Sasanguie, et al., 2013).”