Symbolic and non symbolic numerical representation in adults with and without developmental dyscalculia.

Behav Brain Funct

Department of Learning Disabilities, Edmond J, Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.

Published: November 2012

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study investigates whether Developmental Dyscalculia (DD) stems from issues with non-symbolic numerical representation (like groups of dots) or symbolic representation (like Arabic numbers).
  • DD participants were tested using a modified Stroop task to assess their ability to process symbols and quantities.
  • Results indicate that while control participants showed a congruency effect in fast responses for small quantities (subitizing), DD participants did not, suggesting their difficulties may lie in processing symbolic numbers and associating them with non-symbolic quantities, along with challenges in the counting range.

Article Abstract

Background: The question whether Developmental Dyscalculia (DD; a deficit in the ability to process numerical information) is the result of deficiencies in the non symbolic numerical representation system (e.g., a group of dots) or in the symbolic numerical representation system (e.g., Arabic numerals) has been debated in scientific literature. It is accepted that the non symbolic system is divided into two different ranges, the subitizing range (i.e., quantities from 1-4) which is processed automatically and quickly, and the counting range (i.e., quantities larger than 4) which is an attention demanding procedure and is therefore processed serially and slowly. However, so far no study has tested the automaticity of symbolic and non symbolic representation in DD participants separately for the subitizing and the counting ranges.

Methods: DD and control participants undergo a novel version of the Stroop task, i.e., the Enumeration Stroop. They were presented with a random series of between one and nine written digits, and were asked to name either the relevant written digit (in the symbolic task) or the relevant quantity of digits (in the non symbolic task) while ignoring the irrelevant aspect.

Result: DD participants, unlike the control group, didn't show any congruency effect in the subitizing range of the non symbolic task.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that DD may be impaired in the ability to process symbolic numerical information or in the ability to automatically associate the two systems (i.e., the symbolic vs. the non symbolic). Additionally DD have deficiencies in the non symbolic counting range.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3527185PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-8-55DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

symbolic numerical
16
symbolic
13
symbolic symbolic
12
numerical representation
12
developmental dyscalculia
8
ability process
8
deficiencies symbolic
8
representation system
8
subitizing range
8
range quantities
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!