Nonsymbolic number refers to 'number sense' not reflected by Arabic digits
Core number systems
Subitizing system
ApproximateNumberSystem
Subitizing system
Does not rely on verbal counting skills
Mapping of numerosities <4 occurs prior to the acquisition of the counting principles
Six months after children acquire the countingprinciples, they learn to extend their counting range beyond the numbers within the subitizing range
Subitizing system
Task success dependent on absolutenumber of itemspresented,not affected by the numerical ratio between the crackers
Upper-bound limit of three
Subitizing system
Rhesus Monkeys given a choice between pieces of apple in two opaque containers - succeeded for 1 vs 2, 2 vs 3, 3 vs 4, 3 vs 5 but failed for 4 vs 5, 4 vs 6, 3 vs 8, 4 vs 8
Subitizing system
Rhesus Monkeys have slightly higher capacity than human infants (4 vs. 3)
Rhesus monkeys tracking also unaffected by the ratio between the quantities
Subitizing
Predictive of counting skills in 4-6-year-olds
Unrelated to symbolic number comparison or number line task performance in 6-7-year-olds
Deficits seen in Developmental dyscalculia
Approximate Number System (ANS)
Involved in generatingapproximate,nonsymbolicrepresentations of quantity
Numerons help convert quantities into analogue magnitudes on the mental number line
ANS acuity is imprecise - can be measured using Weber fraction (w)
Nonsymbolic comparison
Arguably the most widelyused measure of the precision of ANS acuity
Involves comparison of twononsymbolicarrays of items (presented simultaneously or sequentially)
Variability of estimates increases with increasing quantity – Scalar variability
Underestimation of smaller numerosities and overestimation of larger numerosities
Meta-analyses demonstrate relationship between ANS and mathachievement is relativelyweak
Signatures of symbolic and non-symbolic comparison are unrelated
Impairments not as strong as in symbolic comparison for children with mathematical difficulties
Poorer number comparison skills
Amongst adults without any formal mathematics education
Direction of relationship between ANS and maths not fully established
Nonsymbolic comparison task
Estimations influenced by non-numerical aspects of the display (dot size, density, perimeter)
No single standardized version - tasks differ in visual characteristics, stimuli presentation, duration
Measurement of ANS acuity
No single index of task performance - % accuracy, error rates, reaction times, accuracy/reaction time composite, distance/ratio effect size
Weber fraction (W) problematic - heterogenous values, different methods controlling for non-numerical dimensions lead to substantially variable performance
Tasks with sequential presentation rely on working memory
Task performance may at least partly depend on participants' ability to ignorevisualcharacteristics and inhibition
Strength of ratio effect dependent on stimulus presentation and how performance was indexed
Better test-retest reliability for accuracy vs. W, argued against the use of ratio effect indices as they were found to be unreliable
Higher reliability for Non-symbolic comparison, compared to Symbolic comparison tasks
Nonsymbolic addition task
Two 'sum' arrays of dots are presented, the sum is compared to a third 'comparison' array
Young children can perform abovechance and show the same pattern as adults
Performance on this task and nonsymbolic comparison task was significantly correlated in children aged 5-11
May tap other skills like workingmemory,inhibition and attentional control
Performance on nonsymbolic addition task
Predictive of earlymathsskills in children who had just begun primary school, even after controlling for intelligence and literacy skills
Training the ANS can lead to improvements in mathematical ability
Many issues in the ANS literature, questioning whether the ANS really exists
It should not be assumed that ANS is numerical in nature (issue of continuous magnitudes)
The nonsymbolic addition task may be a suitablealternative measure of the ANS