Mapping numerical magnitudes onto symbols: the numerical distance effect and individual differences in children's mathematics achievement.

By I. Holloway, Daniel Ansari. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2009

709 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e7a5ff509962afa8850e1e682ebc224018366054

How researchers see this paper

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

In Education

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Neuroeducation – A Critical Overview of An Emerging Field (2012, background): “More broadly, it has been demonstrated that individual differences in the ability to discriminate numerical magnitudes (presented symbolically as Arabic numerals or nonsymbolically as sets of items) is related to and even predicts variability in children’s mathematical achievement [33–36].”
Language in the prediction of arithmetics in kindergarten and grade 1 (2013, background): “The individual area, total area, and density of the squares varied to ensure that participants could not use non-numerical cues to make a correct decision (see Dehaene et al., 2005; Holloway & Ansari, 2009; Maloney, Risko, Ansari, & Fugelsang, 2010).”
The Routledge international handbook of dyscalculia and mathematical learning difficulties (2014, positive): “Performance on number comparison tasks using number symbols (e.g., Arabic digits) or arrays of dots is associated with arithmetic competence (Holloway & Ansari, 2009; Mazzocco, Feigenson & Halberda, 2011).”
Identifying Opportunities for Grade One Children to Acquire Foundational Number Sense: Developing a Framework for Cross Cultural Classroom Analyses (2015, background): “Estimation is thought to be a key determinant of later arithmetical competence, particularly in respect of novel situations (Booth and Siegler 2008; Gersten et al. 2005; Holloway and Ansari 2009; Libertus et al. 2011; Siegler and Booth 2004).”
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 (2013, background): “Performance on this task improves with age [33,70] and is also characterized by an effect of distance or ratio.”
Individual differences in kindergarten math achievement: The integrative roles of approximation skills and working memory (2013, background): “The ability of representing nonsymbolic numerosities was distinct to that of representing symbolic numerals (Holloway & Ansari, 2009).”
Relationships between approximate number system acuity and early symbolic number abilities (2012, background): “When RT differences relative to numerical distance between two numerosities were considered rather than overall accuracy, no correlation was found with math achievement in school-aged children [17,30].”
Natural Number and Natural Geometry (2011, background): “rectional effects on each other, although these effects are not shown on all measures of nonsymbolic performance [35,36], and definitive claims about causal relationships must await the findings of training experiments.”
Spontaneous focusing on numerosity and the arithmetic advantage (2015, background): “This is theoretically likely because we know from previous research that mapping ability is related to mathematics achievement (Booth & Siegler, 2008; Holloway & Ansari, 2009; Mundy & Gilmore, 2009; see De Smedt, No€el, Gilmore, & Ansari, 2013 for a review).”
Pathways to mathematics: longitudinal predictors of performance. (2010, background): “This result is consistent with some existing work suggesting that performance on the magnitude comparison task reflects children’s skill in linking together symbolic and nonsymbolic numerical processes (DeSmedt et al., 2009; Holloway & Ansari, 2009; Mundy & Gilmore, 2009; Rousselle & Noël, 2007).”