TO BE OR NOT TO BE: AN INFORMATIVE NON-SYMBOLIC NUMERICAL MAGNITUDE PROCESSING STUDY ABOUT SMALL VERSUS LARGE NUMBERS IN INFANTS

Many studies tested the association between numerical magnitude processing and mathematical achievement with conflicting findings reported for individuals with mathematical learning disorders. Some of the inconsistencies might be explained by the number of non-symbolic stimuli or dot collectio...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Annelies CEULEMANS, Tom LOEYS, Karel HOPPENBROUWERS, Annemie DESOETE
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Faculty of Philosophy, Institute of Special Education and Rehabilitation 2014-03-01
Series:Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation
Subjects:
Online Access:http://jser.fzf.ukim.edu.mk/files/2014%281-2%29/75-90%20CEULEMANS,%20LOEYS,%20HOPPENBROUWERS,%20DESOETE.pdf
id doaj-9b6cb0ba4061465c900323a7f7ce530f
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9b6cb0ba4061465c900323a7f7ce530f2020-11-24T21:34:40ZengFaculty of Philosophy, Institute of Special Education and RehabilitationJournal of Special Education and Rehabilitation1409-60991857-663X2014-03-01151-2759010.2478/JSER-2014-0005 TO BE OR NOT TO BE: AN INFORMATIVE NON-SYMBOLIC NUMERICAL MAGNITUDE PROCESSING STUDY ABOUT SMALL VERSUS LARGE NUMBERS IN INFANTSAnnelies CEULEMANS0Tom LOEYS1Karel HOPPENBROUWERS2Annemie DESOETE3Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Developmental Disorders, Ghent UniversityDepartment of Data-analysis, Ghent UniversityCentre for Youth Health Care, Catholic University of Louvain Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Developmental Disorders, Ghent University and Artevelde University College Ghent, Belgium Many studies tested the association between numerical magnitude processing and mathematical achievement with conflicting findings reported for individuals with mathematical learning disorders. Some of the inconsistencies might be explained by the number of non-symbolic stimuli or dot collections used in studies. It has been hypothesized that there is an object-file system for ‘small’ and an analogue magnitude system for ‘large’ numbers. This two-system account has been supported by the set size limit of the object-file system (three items). A boundary was defined, accordingly, categorizing numbers below four as ‘small’ and from four and above as ‘large’. However, data on ‘small’ number processing and on the ‘boundary’ between small and large numbers are missing. In this contribution we provide data from infants discriminating between the number sets 4 vs. 8 and 1 vs. 4, both containing the number four combined with a small and a large number respectively. Participants were 25 and 26 full term 9-month-olds for 4 vs. 8 and 1 vs. 4 respectively. The stimuli (dots) were controlled for continuous variables. Eye-tracking was combined with the habituation paradigm. The results showed that the infants were successful in discriminating 1 from 4, but failed to discriminate 4 from 8 dots. This finding supports the assumption of the number four as a ‘small’ number and enlarges the object-file system’s limit. This study might help to explain inconsistencies in studies. Moreover, the information may be useful in answering parent’s questions about challenges that vulnerable children with number processing problems, such as children with mathematical learning disorders, might encounter. In addition, the study might give some information on the stimuli that can be used to effectively foster children’s magnitude processing skills.http://jser.fzf.ukim.edu.mk/files/2014%281-2%29/75-90%20CEULEMANS,%20LOEYS,%20HOPPENBROUWERS,%20DESOETE.pdfinfantsnumber discriminationeye-trackingnon-symbolicmagnitude processing
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Annelies CEULEMANS
Tom LOEYS
Karel HOPPENBROUWERS
Annemie DESOETE
spellingShingle Annelies CEULEMANS
Tom LOEYS
Karel HOPPENBROUWERS
Annemie DESOETE
TO BE OR NOT TO BE: AN INFORMATIVE NON-SYMBOLIC NUMERICAL MAGNITUDE PROCESSING STUDY ABOUT SMALL VERSUS LARGE NUMBERS IN INFANTS
Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation
infants
number discrimination
eye-tracking
non-symbolic
magnitude processing
author_facet Annelies CEULEMANS
Tom LOEYS
Karel HOPPENBROUWERS
Annemie DESOETE
author_sort Annelies CEULEMANS
title TO BE OR NOT TO BE: AN INFORMATIVE NON-SYMBOLIC NUMERICAL MAGNITUDE PROCESSING STUDY ABOUT SMALL VERSUS LARGE NUMBERS IN INFANTS
title_short TO BE OR NOT TO BE: AN INFORMATIVE NON-SYMBOLIC NUMERICAL MAGNITUDE PROCESSING STUDY ABOUT SMALL VERSUS LARGE NUMBERS IN INFANTS
title_full TO BE OR NOT TO BE: AN INFORMATIVE NON-SYMBOLIC NUMERICAL MAGNITUDE PROCESSING STUDY ABOUT SMALL VERSUS LARGE NUMBERS IN INFANTS
title_fullStr TO BE OR NOT TO BE: AN INFORMATIVE NON-SYMBOLIC NUMERICAL MAGNITUDE PROCESSING STUDY ABOUT SMALL VERSUS LARGE NUMBERS IN INFANTS
title_full_unstemmed TO BE OR NOT TO BE: AN INFORMATIVE NON-SYMBOLIC NUMERICAL MAGNITUDE PROCESSING STUDY ABOUT SMALL VERSUS LARGE NUMBERS IN INFANTS
title_sort to be or not to be: an informative non-symbolic numerical magnitude processing study about small versus large numbers in infants
publisher Faculty of Philosophy, Institute of Special Education and Rehabilitation
series Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation
issn 1409-6099
1857-663X
publishDate 2014-03-01
description Many studies tested the association between numerical magnitude processing and mathematical achievement with conflicting findings reported for individuals with mathematical learning disorders. Some of the inconsistencies might be explained by the number of non-symbolic stimuli or dot collections used in studies. It has been hypothesized that there is an object-file system for ‘small’ and an analogue magnitude system for ‘large’ numbers. This two-system account has been supported by the set size limit of the object-file system (three items). A boundary was defined, accordingly, categorizing numbers below four as ‘small’ and from four and above as ‘large’. However, data on ‘small’ number processing and on the ‘boundary’ between small and large numbers are missing. In this contribution we provide data from infants discriminating between the number sets 4 vs. 8 and 1 vs. 4, both containing the number four combined with a small and a large number respectively. Participants were 25 and 26 full term 9-month-olds for 4 vs. 8 and 1 vs. 4 respectively. The stimuli (dots) were controlled for continuous variables. Eye-tracking was combined with the habituation paradigm. The results showed that the infants were successful in discriminating 1 from 4, but failed to discriminate 4 from 8 dots. This finding supports the assumption of the number four as a ‘small’ number and enlarges the object-file system’s limit. This study might help to explain inconsistencies in studies. Moreover, the information may be useful in answering parent’s questions about challenges that vulnerable children with number processing problems, such as children with mathematical learning disorders, might encounter. In addition, the study might give some information on the stimuli that can be used to effectively foster children’s magnitude processing skills.
topic infants
number discrimination
eye-tracking
non-symbolic
magnitude processing
url http://jser.fzf.ukim.edu.mk/files/2014%281-2%29/75-90%20CEULEMANS,%20LOEYS,%20HOPPENBROUWERS,%20DESOETE.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT anneliesceulemans tobeornottobeaninformativenonsymbolicnumericalmagnitudeprocessingstudyaboutsmallversuslargenumbersininfants
AT tomloeys tobeornottobeaninformativenonsymbolicnumericalmagnitudeprocessingstudyaboutsmallversuslargenumbersininfants
AT karelhoppenbrouwers tobeornottobeaninformativenonsymbolicnumericalmagnitudeprocessingstudyaboutsmallversuslargenumbersininfants
AT annemiedesoete tobeornottobeaninformativenonsymbolicnumericalmagnitudeprocessingstudyaboutsmallversuslargenumbersininfants
_version_ 1725948200106328064