Visual form perception predicts 3-year longitudinal development of mathematical achievement

Abstract

Numerous studies have demonstrated an association between approximate number system (ANS) acuity and mathematical performance. Studies have also shown that ANS acuity can predict the longitudinal development of mathematical achievement. Visual form perception in the current investigation was proposed to account for the predictive role of ANS acuity in the development of mathematical achievement. One hundred and eighty-eight school children (100 males, 88 females; mean age = 12.2 ± 0.3 years) participated in the study by completing five tests: numerosity comparison, figure matching, mental rotation, nonverbal matrix reasoning, and choice reaction time. Three years later, they took a mathematical achievement test. We assessed whether the early tests predicted mathematical achievement at the later date. Analysis showed that the ANS acuity measured via numerosity comparison significantly predicted mathematical achievement 3 years later, even when controlling for individual differences in mental rotation, nonverbal matrix reasoning, and choice reaction time, as well as age and gender differences. Hierarchical regression and mediation analyses further showed that the longitudinal predictive role of ANS acuity in mathematical achievement was interpreted by visual form perception measured with a figure-matching test. Together, these results indicate that visual form perception may be the underlying cognitive mechanism that links ANS acuity to mathematical achievement in terms of longitudinal development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Agrillo C, Piffer L, Adriano A (2013) Individual differences in non-symbolic numerical abilities predict mathematical achievements but contradict ATOM. Behav Brain Funct 9(1):26

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Berg C (2008) Academic emotions in student achievement: Promoting engagement and critical thinking through lessons in bioethical dilemmas. Maricopa Institute for Learning. Recuperado el 25 de julio de 2013

  3. Cavina-Pratesi C, Large ME, Milner AD (2015) Visual processing of words in a patient with visual form agnosia: a behavioural and fMRI study. Cortex 64:29–46

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cheng D, Xiao Q, Chen Q, Cui J, Zhou X (2018) Dyslexia and dyscalculia are characterized by common visual perception deficits. Dev Neuropsychol 43(6):497–507

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheng DZ, Xiao Q, Cui JX, Chen CS, Zeng JY, Chen Q, Zhou XL (2019) Short-term numerosity training promotes symbolic arithmetic in children with developmental dyscalculia: the mediating role of visual form perception. Dev Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12910

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cirino PT (2011) The interrelationships of mathematical precursors in kindergarten. J Exp Child Psychol 108(4):713–733

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cirino PT, Tolar TD, Fuchs LS, Huston-Warren E (2016) Cognitive and numerosity predictors of mathematical skills in middle school. J Exp Child Psychol 145:95–119

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Conners CK (2006) Conners’ Kiddie continuous performance test-version 5. Multi Health Systems Inc., North Tonawanda

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cui J, Zhang Y, Cheng D, Li D, Zhou X (2017) Visual form perception can be a cognitive correlate of lower level math categories for teenagers. Front Psychol 8:1336

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cui J, Zhang Y, Wan S, Chen C, Zeng J, Zhou X (2019) Visual form perception is fundamental for both reading comprehension and arithmetic computation. Cognition 189:141–154

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Desoete A, Ceulemans A, De WF, Pieters S (2012) Can we predict mathematical learning disabilities from symbolic and non-symbolic comparison tasks in kindergarten? findings from a longitudinal study. Br J Educ Psychol 82(1):64–81

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Efron R (1969) What is perception? Bost Stud Philos Sci 4:137–173

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ekstrom RB, French JW, Harman HH, Dermen D (1976) Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Educational testing service, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  14. Elliott L, Libertus ME (2015) Inhibitory control may not explain the link between approximation and math abilities in kindergarteners from middle class families. Front Psychol 6(685):685. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Feigenson L, Dehaene S, Spelke E (2004) Core systems of number. Trends Cogn Sci 8(7):307–314

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fuhs MW, McNeil NM (2013) ANS acuity and mathematics ability in preschoolers from low-income homes: Contributions of inhibitory control. Developm Sci 16(1):136–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Geary DC, Bailey DH, Hoard MK (2009) Predicting mathematical achievement and mathematical learning disability with a simple screening tool the number sets test. J Psychoeduc Assess 27(3):265–279

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gebuis T, Reynvoet B (2011) Generating nonsymbolic number stimuli. Behav Res Methods 43(4):981–986

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gilmore C, Attridge N, Clayton S, Cragg L, Johnson S, Marlow N et al (2013) Individual differences in inhibitory control, not non-verbal numberacuity, correlate with mathematics achievement. PLoS One 8(6):e67374. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067374

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Guilford JP, Guilford RB (1936) Personality factors S, E, and M, and their measurement. J Psychol 2(1):109–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Halberda J, Mazzocco MMM, Feigenson L (2008) Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature 455(7213):665–668

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Halberda J, Ly R, Wilmer JB, Naiman DQ, Germine L (2012) Number sense across the lifespan as revealed by a massive Internet-based sample. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(28):11116–11120

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. He Y, Zhou X, Shi D, Song H, Zhang H, Shi J (2016) New evidence on causal relationship between approximate number system (ANS) acuity and arithmetic ability in elementary-school students: a longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. Front Psychol 7:1052

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hedden T, Yoon C (2006) Individual differences in executive processing predict susceptibility to interference in verbal working memory. Neuropsychology 20(5):511–528

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hyde DC, Khanum S, Spelke ES (2014) Brief non-symbolic, approximate number practice enhances subsequent exact symbolic arithmetic in children. Cognition 131(1):92–107

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Inglis M, Batchelor S, Gilmore C, Watson DG (2017) Is the ANS linked to mathematics performance? Behav Brain Sci 40:e174. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16002120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Krajewski K, Schneider W (2009) Exploring the impact of phonological awareness, visual–spatial working memory, and preschool quantity number competencies on mathematics achievement in elementary school: findings from a 3-year longitudinal study. J Exp Child Psychol 103(4):516–531

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kyttälä M, Lehto JE (2008) Some factors underlying mathematical performance: the role of visuospatial working memory and non-verbal intelligence. Eur J Psychol Educ 23(1):77–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Libertus ME, Feigenson L, Halberda J (2011) Preschool acuity of the approximate number system correlates with school math ability. Dev Sci 14(6):1292–1300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01080.x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Libertus ME, Feigenson L, Halberda J (2013) Is approximate number precision a stable predictor of math ability? Learn Individ Differ 25:126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.02.001

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Libertus ME, Brannon EM (2010) Stable individual differences in number discrimination in infancy. Dev Sci 13(6):900–906

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lyons IM, Beilock SL (2011) Numerical ordering ability mediates the relation between number-sense and arithmetic competence. Cognition 121(2):256–261

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Malone SA, Pritchard VE, Heron-Delaney M, Burgoyne K, Lervåg Arne, Hulme C (2019) The relationship between numerositydiscrimination and arithmetic skill reflects the approximate number system and cannot be explained by inhibitory control. J Exp Child Psychol 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.02.009

  34. Marle KV, Chu FW, Li Y, Geary DC (2014) Acuity of the approximate number system and preschoolers’ quantitative development. Dev Sci 17(4):492–505

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mazzocco MM, Feigenson L, Halberda J (2011) Impaired acuity of the approximate number system underlies mathematical learning disability (dyscalculia). Child Dev 82(4):1224–1237

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Milner AD, Perrett DI, Johnston RS, Benson PJ, Jordan TR, Heeley DW et al (1991) Perception and actin in ‘visual form agnosia’. Brain 114(1):405–428

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Park J, Brannon EM (2013) Training the approximate number system improves math proficiency. Psychol Sci 24(10):2013–2016

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Piazza M, Facoetti A, Trussardi AN, Berteletti I, Conte S, Lucangeli D, Dehaene S, Zorzi M (2010) Developmental trajectory of number acuity reveals a severe impairment in developmental dyscalculia. Cognition 116(1):33–41

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Putz DA, Gaulin SJC, Sporter RJ, McBurney DH (2004) Sex hormones and finger length—what does 2D:4D indicate? Evolut Hum Behav 25(3):182–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Raven J (2000) The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: change and stability over culture and time. Cogn Psychol 41(1):1–48

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rohde TE, Thompson LA (2007) Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability. Intelligence 35(1):83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Salthouse TA (1994) The nature of the influence of speed on adult age differences in cognition. Dev Psychol 30(2):240–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sasanguie D, Bussche EVD, Reynvoet B (2012) Predictors for mathematics achievement? Evidence from a longitudinal study. Mind Brain Educ 6(3):119–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2012.01147.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schneider M, Beeres K, Coban L, Merz S, Susan Schmidt S, Stricker J, De Smedt B (2016) Associations of non-symbolic and symbolicnumerical magnitude processing with mathematical competence: A meta-analysis. Dev Sci 20(3):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Simmons FR, Willis C, Adams AM (2012) Different components of working memory have different relationships with different mathematical skills. J Exp Child Psychol 111(2):139–155

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. De Smedt B, Noël MP, Gilmore C, Ansari D (2013) The relationship between symbolic and non-symbolic numerical magnitude processing skillsand the typical and atypical development of mathematics: A review of evidence from brain and behavior. Trends Neurosci Educ 2:48–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Starr A, Libertus ME, Brannon EM (2013) Number sense in infancy predicts mathematical abilities in childhood. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(45):18116–18120

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Szwed M, Cohen L, Qiao, Dehaene S (2009) The role of invariant line junctions in object and visual word recognition. Vis Res 49(7): 718–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.01.003

  49. Van Der Ven SH, Van Der Maas HL, Straatemeier M, Jansen BR (2013) Visuospatial working memory and mathematical ability at different ages throughout primary school. Learning and Individual Differences 27:182–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Vandenberg SG, Kuse AR (1978) Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Percept Mot Skills 47(2):599–604

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Vecchi T, Girelli L (1998) Gender differences in visuo-spatial processing: the importance of distinguishing between passive storage and active manipulation. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 99(1):1–16

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Wang L, Sun Y, Zhou X (2016) Relation between approximate number system acuity and mathematical achievement: the influence of fluency. Front Psychol 7:1966

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Wei W, Lu H, Zhao H, Chen C, Dong Q, Zhou X (2012a) Gender differences in children’s arithmetic performance are accounted for by gender differences in language abilities. Psychol Sci 23(3):320–330

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wei W, Yuan H, Chen C, Zhou X (2012b) Cognitive correlates of performance in advanced mathematics. Br J Educ Psychol 82(1):157–181

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Zhang Y, Chen C, Liu H, Cui J, Zhou X (2016) Both non-symbolic and symbolic quantity processing are important for arithmetical computation but not for mathematical reasoning. J Cogn Psychol 28(7):807–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Zhang Y, Liu T, Chen C, Zhou X (2019) Visual form perception supports approximate number system acuity and arithmetic fluency. Learn Indiv Differ 71:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Zhou X, Cheng D (2015) When and why numerosity processing is associated with developmental dyscalculia. The Routledge international handbook of dyscalculia and mathematical learning difficulties. Routledge, New York, pp 78–89

    Google Scholar 

  58. Zhou X, Wei W, Zhang Y, Cui J, Chen C (2015) Visual perception can account for the close relation between numerosity processing and computational fluency. Front Psychol 6:1364

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by three Grants from the Natural Science Foundation of China (31671151, 31600896, and 31521063), the 111 Project (BP0719032), and a Grant from the Advanced Innovation Center for Future Education (27900-110631111). The investigation received approval from the institutional review board (IRB) at the State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, as well as from the primary schools.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xinlin Zhou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all the parents of the participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Handling editor: Martin H. Fischer (University of Potsdam).

Reviewers: Alex Miklashevsky (University of Potsdam) and a second researcher who prefers to remain anonymous.

Appendix: Examples used in the self-adapted mathematical achievement test

Appendix: Examples used in the self-adapted mathematical achievement test

Arithmetic problem:

9.3 × 6 means to

A: count 9.3 for 6 times

B: count 9.3 for 3 times

C: count 9.3 for 4 times

D: count 9.3 for 5 times

E: count 6 for 9.3 times

Algebraic problem:

Below shows faulty steps used to solve the equation 5x ‒ 40 = 20. From which step did the mistake occur?

Step 1: 5x ÷ 5 ‒ 40 = 20 ÷ 5

Step 2: x ‒ 40 = 4

Step 3: x ‒ 40 + 40 = 4 + 40

Step 4: x = 44

A: Step 1

B: Step 2

C: Step 3

D: Step 4

E: Not sure

Geometric problem:

figurea

If the total surface area of the rectangular solid shown above is 24 square centimeters, what is the sum if the red, yellow, and blue areas are added up (expressed in square centimeters)?

A: 10

B: 20

C: 14

D: 16

E: 12

Statistical problem:

There are four kinds of vegetables planted in a field: green peppers, cucumbers, towel gourds, and eggplants. The figure below shows the area used for planting each vegetable.

figureb

The percentage of area where green peppers are planted is ( )%.

If the area for planting towel gourds is 300 m2, then area for planting eggplants is ( ) m2.

( ) has the largest area for planting, which is ( )% larger than the area for green peppers.

A: 20; 160; Cucumbers; 25

B: 30; 160; Cucumbers; 125

C: 20; 150; Towel gourd; 5

D: 20; 140; Towel gourd; 5

E: 20; 120; Cucumbers; 125

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, X., Hu, Y., Yuan, L. et al. Visual form perception predicts 3-year longitudinal development of mathematical achievement. Cogn Process (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-020-00980-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mathematical cognition
  • Approximate number system
  • Visual form perception
  • Mathematical achievement
  • Longitudinal development