Further Evidence for a Spatial-Numerical Association in Children Before Formal Schooling
Abstract
Given the robust finding that number and space are associated systematically at least in school children and adults, it has been concluded that this association might be based on the frequent practice of reading or writing skills, which are usually consolidated by formal schooling. However, first studies contradict this assumption demonstrating that associations of “small” magnitudes with left space and of “large” magnitudes with right space exist already in preschoolers. The present study used a non-symbolic magnitude comparison task to examine whether kindergartners who have not yet been formally instructed in reading and writing show a SNARC effect, that is, whether they would respond more rapidly with the right hand to larger numbers and with the left hand to smaller numbers. This assumption was confirmed by the data. In view of further evidence for an association between number and space that evolves before children are proficient in reading and writing, the role of potential alternative culture-specific, individual, and universal foundations of this association is emphasized and discussed.
References
(2007). Do redeployed finger representations underlie math ability? In , Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society(pp. 1703.
(2012). Common substrate for mental arithmetic and finger representation in the parietal cortex. NeuroImage, 62, 1520–1528.
(2007). Contribution of hand motor circuits to counting. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 563–576.
(1998). Stimulus-response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia, 36, 731–735.
(2011). Finger–number interaction: An ideomotor account. Experimental Psychology, 58, 287–292. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000095
(2012). Nature and culture of finger counting: Diversity and representational effects of an embodied cognitive tool. Cognition, 124, 156–182.
(1999). Extracting parity and magnitude from Arabic numerals: Developmental changes in number processing and mental representation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74, 286–308.
(1999). What counts – how every brain is hardwired for math. New York, NY: The Free Press.
(2012). Handedness shapes children’s abstract concepts. Cognitive Science, 36, 359–372.
(1975). Span and rate of apprehension in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 19, 434–439.
(2009). Mirror writing in pre-school children: A pilot study. Cognitive Processing, 10, 101–104.
(1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396.
(2010). Place and summation coding respectively for canonical and non-canonical finger numeral representations. Cognition, 117, 95–100.
(
in press ). Evidence for a spatial-numerical association in kindergartners using a number line task. Journal of Cognition and Development. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2013.805134(2008). The relationship between the shape of the mental number line and familiarity with numbers in 5- to 9-year-old children: Evidence for a segmented linear model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99, 1–17.
(2005). About numerical representations: Insights from neuropsychological, experimental, and developmental studies. In , Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
(2005). Spatial representation of numbers. In , Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 43–54). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
(2008). Finger counting habits modulate spatial-numerical associations. Cortex, 44, 386–392.
(2012). Unravelling the mystery of mirror writing in typically developing children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 193–205.
(2010). How to cook a SNARC: Number placement in text rapidly changes spatial–numerical associations. Brain and Cognition, 72, 333–336.
(2005). The hunt for SNARC. Psychology Science, 15, 10–21.
(2003). The mental representation of ordinal sequences is spatially organized. Cognition, 87, B87–B95.
(2004). The mental representation of ordinal sequences is spatially organized. Evidence from days of the week. Cortex, 40, 171–172.
(2006). Numbers and space: A computational model of the SNARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 32–44.
(2000). Children’s coding of human action; Cognitive factors influencing imitation in 3-year-olds. Developmental Science, 3, 405–414.
(2011). Hard and fast rules about the body: contributions of the action stream to judging body space. Experimental Brain Research, 212, 563–574.
(2005). Interactions between number and space in the parietal cortex. Nature, 6, 435–448.
(2013). Language statistics explain the spatial-numerical association of response codes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0492-2
(2011). Finger counting habits in Middle-Eastern and Western individuals: An online survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 566–578.
(2012). Implicit response-irrelevant number information triggers the SNARC effect: Evidence using a neural overlap paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1945–1961.
(1967). Time required for judgments of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519–1520.
(2005). The universal SNARC effect. The association between number magnitude and space is amodal. Experimental Psychology, 52, 187–194. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.52.3.187
(2011). How numbers bias preschoolers’ spatial search. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 682–695.
(2006). Even early representations of numerical magnitude are spatially organized: Evidence for a directional magnitude bias in pre-reading preschoolers. In , Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 639–644). Vancouver, Canada: Cognitive Science Society.
(2010). Early development of spatial-numeric associations: Evidence from spatial and quantitative performance of preschoolers. Developmental Science, 13, 761–771.
(2012). The spatial-numerical congruity effect in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111, 534–542.
(2011). Nature or nurture in finger counting: a review on the determinants of the direction of number-finger mapping. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 363.
(2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416–442.
(2011). From scribbles to scrabble: Preschool children’s developing knowledge of written language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 567–589.
(2010). Is it only humans that count from left to right? Biology Letters, 6, 290–292.
(2012). Direction counts: A comparative study of spatially directional counting biases in cultures with different reading directions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112, 275–281.
(2012). SNARC effects with numerical and non-numerical symbolic comparative judgments: Instructional and cultural dependencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 515–530.
(1991). Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 515–557.
(2008). Developing access to number magnitude: A study of the SNARC effect in 7- to 9-year-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 101, 99–113.
(1989). Preschool children’s explorations of letters in their own names. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 283–300.
(2012). Symbolic number: The integration of magnitude and spatial representations in children aged 6 to 8 years. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 392.
(2008). On the cognitive link between space and number: A meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 489–525.
(1990). Children’s understanding of counting. Cognition, 36, 155–193.
(1992). Children’s acquisition of the number words and the counting system. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 220–251.
(2001). Neural correlates of simple and complex mental calculation. NeuroImage, 13, 314–327.
(2005). Linkages between number concepts, spatial thinking, and directionality of writing: The SNARC effect and the reverse SNARC effect in English and Arabic monoliterates, biliterates, and illiterate Arabic speakers. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 5, 165–190.
