Signal clarity: an account of the variability in infant quantity discrimination tasks

Counting and the ontogenetic origins of exact equality

Humans are unique in their capacity to both represent number exactly and to express these representations symbolically. This correlation has prompted debate regarding whether symbolic number systems are necessary to represent large exact number. Previous work addressing this question in innumerate adults and semi-numerate children has been limited by conflicting results and differing methodologies, and has not yielded a clear answer. We address this debate by adapting methods used with innumerate populations (a "set-matching" task) for 3- to 5-year-old US children at varying stages of symbolic number acquisition. In five studies we find that children's ability to match sets exactly is related not simply to knowing the meanings of a few number words, but also to understanding how counting is used to generate sets (i.e., the cardinal principle). However, while children were more likely to match sets after acquiring the cardinal principle, they nevertheless demonstrated failures, compatible with the hypothesis that the ability to reason about exact equality emerges sometime later. These findings provide important data on the origin of exact number concepts, and point to knowledge of a counting system, rather than number language in general, as a key ingredient in the ability to reason about large exact number.

Dynamic changes in numerical acuity in 4-month-old infants

Preverbal infants represent the approximate numerosity of visual and auditory arrays: By 6 months old, they reliably discriminate eight dots or tones from 16 (a 1:2 ratio), but not eight from 12 (a 2:3 ratio). The precision of this approximate number sense improves gradually over childhood and into adulthood. However, less is known about numerical abilities in younger infants, and in particular, whether there is developmental change in the number sense in the first half year of life. Here, in four experiments, we measured numerical precision in 4-month-old infants (N = 128) using a visual habituation task comparable to that in studies of older infants. We found that 4-month-olds exhibited poorer numerical discrimination than the 6-month-olds tested in previous studies, dishabituating to a 1:4 change in numerical ratio, but not a 1:3 change. Like older infants, 4-month-olds' numerical precision improved when they were provided with redundant visual and auditory input; when both visual and auditory information were present, 4-month-olds discriminated a 1:3 but not a 1:2 ratio. These results suggest that Approximate Number System precision develops in early infancy and may be sensitive to intersensory redundancy as early as four months of age.

Preschoolers and multi-digit numbers: A path to mathematics through the symbols themselves

Numerous studies from developmental psychology have suggested that human symbolic representation of numbers is built upon the evolutionally old capacity for representing quantities that is shared with other species. Substantial research from mathematics education also supports the idea that mathematical concepts are best learned through their corresponding physical representations. We argue for an independent pathway to learning "big" multi-digit symbolic numbers that focuses on the symbol system itself. Across five experiments using both between- and within-subject designs, we asked preschoolers to identify written multi-digit numbers with their spoken names in a two-alternative-choice-test or to indicate the larger quantity between two written numbers. Results showed that preschoolers could reliably map spoken number names to written forms and compare the magnitudes of two written multi-digit numbers. Importantly, these abilities were not related to their non-symbolic representation of quantities. These findings have important implications for numerical cognition, symbolic development, teaching, and education.

Number, time, and space are not singularly represented: Evidence against a common magnitude system beyond early childhood

Our ability to represent temporal, spatial, and numerical information is critical for understanding the world around us. Given the prominence of quantitative representations in the natural world, numerous cognitive, neurobiological, and developmental models have been proposed as a means of describing how we track quantity. One prominent theory posits that time, space, and number are represented by a common magnitude system, or a common neural locus (i.e., Bonn & Cantlon in Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29(1/2), 149-173, 2012; Cantlon, Platt, & Brannon in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(2), 83-91, 2009; Meck & Church in Animal Behavior Processes, 9(3), 320, 1983; Walsh in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 483-488, 2003). Despite numerous similarities in representations of time, space, and number, an increasing body of literature reveals striking dissociations in how each quantity is processed, particularly later in development. These findings have led many researchers to consider the possibility that separate systems may be responsible for processing each quantity. This review will analyze evidence in favor of a common magnitude system, particularly in infancy, which will be tempered by counter evidence, the majority of which comes from experiments with children and adult participants. After reviewing the current data, we argue that although the common magnitude system may account for quantity representations in infancy, the data do not provide support for this system throughout the life span. We also identify future directions for the field and discuss the likelihood of the developmental divergence model of quantity representation, like that of Newcombe (Ecological Psychology, 2, 147-157, 2014), as a more plausible account of quantity development.

Using Hierarchical Linear Models to Examine Approximate Number System Acuity: The Role of Trial-Level and Participant-Level Characteristics

The ability to intuitively and quickly compare the number of items in collections without counting is thought to rely on the Approximate Number System (ANS). To assess individual differences in the precision of peoples' ANS representations, researchers often use non-symbolic number comparison tasks in which participants quickly choose the numerically larger of two arrays of dots. However, some researchers debate whether this task actually measures the ability to discriminate approximate numbers or instead measures the ability to discriminate other continuous magnitude dimensions that are often confounded with number (e.g., the total surface area of the dots or the convex hull of the dot arrays). In this study, we used hierarchical linear models (HLMs) to predict 132 adults' accuracy on each trial of a non-symbolic number comparison task from a comprehensive set of trial-level characteristics (including numerosity ratio, surface area, convex hull, and temporal and spatial variations in presentation format) and participant-level controls (including cognitive abilities such as visual-short term memory, working memory, and math ability) in order to gain a more nuanced understanding of how individuals complete this task. Our results indicate that certain trial-level characteristics of the dot arrays contribute to our ability to compare numerosities, yet numerosity ratio, the critical marker of the ANS, remains a highly significant predictor of accuracy above and beyond trial-level characteristics and across individuals with varying levels of math ability and domain-general cognitive abilities.

Infants' intermodal numerical knowledge

Two-system theory as the dominant approach in the field of infant numerical representation is characterized by three features: precise representation of small sets of objects, approximate representation of large magnitudes and failure to compare small and large sets. Comparison of single- and multimodal numerical abilities suggests that infants' performance in multimodal conditions is consistent with these three features. Nevertheless, the influence of multimodal stimulation on infants' numerical representation is characterized by preventing the formation of perceptual overlaps across different sensory modalities which can lead to an understanding of numerical values of small sets and also by creating a conceptual overlap about numbers that increases infants' accuracy for discriminating quantities when numerical information is presented bimodally and synchronously. Such multisensory benefits provide numerical capabilities beyond what is depicted by the two-system view.

Number and Continuous Magnitude Processing Depends on Task Goals and Numerosity Ratio

A large body of evidence shows that when comparing non-symbolic numerosities, performance is influenced by irrelevant continuous magnitudes, such as total surface area, density, etc. In the current work, we ask whether the weights given to numerosity and continuous magnitudes are modulated by top-down and bottom-up factors. With that aim in mind, we asked adult participants to compare two groups of dots. To manipulate task demands, participants reported after every trial either (1) how accurate their response was (emphasizing accuracy) or (2) how fast their response was (emphasizing speed). To manipulate bottom-up factors, the stimuli were presented for 50 ms, 100 ms or 200 ms. Our results revealed (a) that the weights given to numerosity and continuous magnitude ratios were affected by the interaction of top-down and bottom-up manipulations and (b) that under some conditions, using numerosity ratio can reduce efficiency. Accordingly, we suggest that processing magnitudes is not rigid and static but a flexible and adaptive process that allows us to deal with the ever-changing demands of the environment. We also argue that there is not just one answer to the question 'what do we process when we process magnitudes?', and future studies should take this flexibility under consideration.

Commentary on Leibovich et al.: What next?

The conclusions reached by Leibovich et al. urge the field to regroup and consider new ways of conceptualizing quantitative development. We suggest three potential directions for new research that follow from the authors' extensive review, as well as building on the common ground we can take from decades of research in this area.

Numerical intuitions in infancy: Give credit where credit is due

Leibovich et al. overlook numerous human infant studies pointing to an early emerging number sense. These studies have carefully manipulated continuous magnitudes in the context of a numerical task revealing that infants can discriminate number when extent is controlled, that infants fail to track extent cues with precision, and that infants find changes in extent less salient than numerical changes.

Sample size, statistical power, and false conclusions in infant looking-time research

Infant research is hard. It is difficult, expensive, and time consuming to identify, recruit and test infants. As a result, ours is a field of small sample sizes. Many studies using infant looking time as a measure have samples of 8 to 12 infants per cell, and studies with more than 24 infants per cell are uncommon. This paper examines the effect of such sample sizes on statistical power and the conclusions drawn from infant looking time research. An examination of the state of the current literature suggests that most published looking time studies have low power, which leads in the long run to an increase in both false positive and false negative results. Three data sets with large samples (>30 infants) were used to simulate experiments with smaller sample sizes; 1000 random subsamples of 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 infants from the overall samples were selected, making it possible to examine the systematic effect of sample size on the results. This approach revealed that despite clear results with the original large samples, the results with smaller subsamples were highly variable, yielding both false positive and false negative outcomes. Finally, a number of emerging possible solutions are discussed.

Primitive Concepts of Number and the Developing Human Brain

Counting is an evolutionarily recent cultural invention of the human species. In order for humans to have conceived of counting in the first place, certain representational and logical abilities must have already been in place. The focus of this review is the origins and nature of those fundamental mechanisms that promoted the emergence of the human number concept. Five claims are presented that support an evolutionary view of numerical development: 1) number is an abstract concept with an innate basis in humans, 2) maturational processes constrain the development of humans' numerical representations between infancy and adulthood, 3) there is evolutionary continuity in the neural processes of numerical cognition in primates, 4) primitive logical abilities support verbal counting development in humans, and 5) primitive neural processes provide the foundation for symbolic numerical development in the human brain. We support these claims by examining current evidence from animal cognition, child development, and human brain function. The data show that at the basis of human numerical concepts are primitive perceptual and logical mechanisms that have evolutionary homologs in other primates and form the basis of numerical development in the human brain. In the final section of the review, we discuss some hypotheses for what makes human numerical reasoning unique by drawing on evidence from human and non-human primate neuroimaging research.

Universal and uniquely human factors in spontaneous number perception

A capacity for nonverbal numerical estimation is widespread among humans and animals. However, it is currently unclear whether numerical percepts are spontaneously extracted from the environment and whether nonverbal perception is influenced by human exposure to formal mathematics. We tested US adults and children, non-human primates, and numerate and innumerate Tsimane' adults on a quantity task in which they could choose to categorize sets of dots on the basis of number alone, surface area alone or a combination of the two. Despite differences in age, species and education, subjects are universally biased to base their judgments on number as opposed to the alternatives. Numerical biases are uniquely enhanced in humans compared to non-human primates, and correlated with degree of mathematics experience in both the US and Tsimane' groups. We conclude that humans universally and spontaneously extract numerical information, and that human nonverbal numerical perception is enhanced by symbolic numeracy.

Core mathematical abilities in infants: Number and much more

Adults' ability to process numerical information can be traced back to the first days of life. The cognitive mechanisms underlying numerical representations are functional in preverbal infants, who are able to both track a small number of individuals and to estimate the numerosity of large sets across different modalities. This ability is closely linked to their ability to compute other quantitative dimensions such as spatial extent and temporal duration. In fact, the human mind establishes, early in life, spontaneous links between number, space, and time, which are privileged relative to links with other continuous dimensions (like loudness and brightness). Finally, preverbal infants do not only associate numbers to corresponding spatial extents but also to different spatial positions along a spatial axis. It is argued that these number-space mappings are at the origins of the "mental number line" representation, which is already functional in the first year of life.