Abstract
Previous research has proposed that the approximate number system (ANS) constitutes a building block for later mathematical abilities. Therefore, numerous studies investigated the relationship between ANS acuity and mathematical performance, but results are inconsistent. Properties of the experimental design have been discussed as a potential explanation of these inconsistencies. In the present study, we investigated the influence of set size and presentation duration on the association between non-symbolic magnitude comparison and math performance. Moreover, we focused on strategies reported as an explanation for these inconsistencies. In particular, we employed a non-symbolic magnitude comparison task and asked participants how they solved the task. We observed that set size was a significant moderator of the relationship between non-symbolic magnitude comparison and math performance, whereas presentation duration of the stimuli did not moderate this relationship. This supports the notion that specific design characteristics contribute to the inconsistent results. Moreover, participants reported different strategies including numerosity-based, visual, counting, calculation-based, and subitizing strategies. Frequencies of these strategies differed between different set sizes and presentation durations. However, we found no specific strategy, which alone predicted arithmetic performance, but when considering the frequency of all reported strategies, arithmetic performance could be predicted. Visual strategies made the largest contribution to this prediction. To conclude, the present findings suggest that different design characteristics contribute to the inconsistent findings regarding the relationship between non-symbolic magnitude comparison and mathematical performance by inducing different strategies and additional processes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agrillo, C., Piffer, L., & Adriano, A. (2013). Individual differences in non-symbolic numerical abilities predict mathematical achievements but contradict ATOM. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 9(1), 26.
Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (2007). I-S-T 2000 R: Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 R. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Anobile, G., Cicchini, G. M., & Burr, D. C. (2013). Separate mechanisms for perception of numerosity and density. Psychological Science, 25(1), 265–270. doi:10.1177/0956797613501520.
Anobile, G., Turi, M., Cicchini, G., & Burr, D. (2015). Mechanisms for perception of numerosity or texture-density are governed by crowding-like effects. Journal of Vision, 15, 4.
Ansari, D. (2012). Why the “symbol-grounding problem” for number symbols is still problematic. Current Anthropology, 53(2), 212–213. doi:10.1086/664818.
Assel, M. A., Landry, S. H., Swank, P., Smith, K. E., & Steelman, L. M. (2003). Precursors to mathematical skills: Examining the roles of visual-spatial skills, executive processes, and parenting factors. Applied Developmental Science, 7(1), 27–38. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0701_3.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.
Baayen, R. H., & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.
Bartelet, D., Vaessen, A., Blomert, L., & Ansari, D. (2014). What basic number processing measures in kindergarten explain unique variability in first-grade arithmetic proficiency? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 117(1), 12–28. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.08.010.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models unsing lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2346101.
Brankaer, C., Ghesquière, P., & De Smedt, B. (2014). Children’s mapping between non-symbolic and symbolic numerical magnitudes and its association with timed and untimed tests of mathematics achievement. PLoS One, 9(4), e93565. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093565.
Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive functioning as a predictor of children’s mathematics ability: Inhibition, switching, and working memory. Developmental Neuropsychology, 19(3), 273–293.
Cantlon, J. F., Platt, M. L., & Brannon, E. M. (2009). Beyond the number domain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(2), 83–91. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.007.
Castronovo, J., & Göbel, S. M. (2012). Impact of high mathematics education on the number sense. PLoS One, 7(4), e33832. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033832.
Chang, C.-C., & Lin, C.-J. (2011). LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 2(3), 1–27. doi:10.1145/1961189.1961199.
Chen, Q., & Li, J. (2014). Association between individual differences in non-symbolic number acuity and math performance: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica, 148, 163–172. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.01.016.
Cicchini, G. M., Anobile, G., Burr, D. C., Agrillo, C., Bisazza, A., Izard, V., & Tibber, M. S. (2016). Spontaneous perception of numerosity in humans. Nature Communications, 7, 12536. doi:10.1038/ncomms12536.
Clayton, S., & Gilmore, C. (2015). Inhibition in dot comparison tasks. ZDM, 47(5), 759–770. doi:10.1007/s11858-014-0655-2.
Clayton, S., Gilmore, C., & Inglis, M. (2015). Dot comparison stimuli are not all alike: The effect of different visual controls on ANS measurement. Acta Psychologica, 161, 177–184.
Crutcher, R. J. (1994). Telling what we know: The use of verbal report methodologies in psychological research. Psychological Science, 5(5), 241. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00619.x.
Cutini, S., Scatturin, P., Basso Moro, S., & Zorzi, M. (2014). Are the neural correlates of subitizing and estimation dissociable? An fNIRS investigation. Neuroimage, 85, 391–399. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.027.
De Oliveira Ferreira, F., Wood, G., Pinheiro-Chagas, P., Lonnemann, J., Krinzinger, H., Willmes, K., & Haase, V. G. (2012). Explaining school mathematics performance from symbolic and nonsymbolic magnitude processing: Similarities and differences between typical and low-achieving children. Psychology and Neuroscience, 5(1), 37–46.
De Smedt, B., Noël, M.-P., Gilmore, C., & Ansari, D. (2013). How do symbolic and non-symbolic numerical magnitude processing skills relate to individual differences in children’s mathematical skills? A review of evidence from brain and behavior. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2(2), 48–55. doi:10.1016/j.tine.2013.06.001.
Defever, E., Reynvoet, B., & Gebuis, T. (2013). Task- and age-dependent effects of visual stimulus properties on children’s explicit numerosity judgments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 216–233. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.04.006.
Dehaene, S. (2001). Precis of the number sense. Mind and Language, 16(1), 16–36. doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00154.
Dehaene, S. (2009). Origins of mathematical intuitions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156(1), 232–259. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04469.x.
DeWind, N. K., Adams, G. K., Platt, M. L., & Brannon, E. M. (2015). Modeling the approximate number system to quantify the contribution of visual stimulus features. Cognition, 142, 247–265. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.016.
Dietrich, J. F., Huber, S., Klein, E., Willmes, K., Pixner, S., & Moeller, K. (2016). A systematic investigation of accuracy and response time based measures used to index ANS acuity. PLoS One, 11(9), e0163076.
Dietrich, J. F., Huber, S., Moeller, K., & Klein, E. (2015a). The influence of math anxiety on symbolic and non-symbolic magnitude processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1621. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01621.
Dietrich, J. F., Huber, S., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2015b). Methodological aspects to be considered when measuring the approximate number system (ANS)—a research review. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 295. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00295.
Durgin, F. H. (1995). Texture density adaptation and the perceived numerosity and distribution of texture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 149–169.
Espy, K. A., McDiarmid, M. M., Cwik, M. F., Stalets, M. M., Hamby, A., & Stern, T. E. (2004). The contribution of executive functions to emergent mathematic skills in preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26(1), 465–486.
Fazio, L. K., Bailey, D. H., Thompson, C. A., & Siegler, R. S. (2014). Relations of different types of numerical magnitude representations to each other and to mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 123(1), 53–72. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2014.01.013.
Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 307–314. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.002.
Feigenson, L., Libertus, M. E., & Halberda, J. (2013). Links between the intuitive sense of number and formal mathematics ability. Child Development Perspectives, 7(2), 74–79. doi:10.1111/cdep.12019.
Fuhs, M. W., & McNeil, N. M. (2013). ANS acuity and mathematics ability in preschoolers from low-income homes: Contributions of inhibitory control. Developmental Science, 16(1), 136–148. doi:10.1111/desc.12013.
Gandini, D., Lemaire, P., Anton, J.-L., & Nazarian, B. (2008a). Neural correlates of approximate quantification strategies in young and older adults: An fMRI study. Brain Research, 1246, 144–157. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.05.009.
Gandini, D., Lemaire, P., & Dufau, S. (2008b). Older and younger adults’ strategies in approximate quantification. Acta Psychologica, 129(1), 175–189. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.05.009.
Gebuis, T., & Reynvoet, B. (2011). Generating nonsymbolic number stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, 43(4), 981–986. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0097-5.
Gebuis, T., & Reynvoet, B. (2012). The interplay between nonsymbolic number and its continuous visual properties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 642–648. doi:10.1037/a0026218.
Gilmore, C., Attridge, N., Clayton, S., Cragg, L., Johnson, S., Marlow, N., & Inglis, M. (2013). Individual differences in inhibitory control, not non-verbal number acuity, correlate with mathematics achievement. PLoS One, 8(6), 1–9. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067374.
Gilmore, C., Attridge, N., De Smedt, B., & Inglis, M. (2014). Measuring the approximate number system in children: Exploring the relationships among different tasks. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 50–58. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.10.004.
Gilmore, C., Attridge, N., & Inglis, M. (2011). Measuring the approximate number system. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(11), 2099–2109. doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.574710.
Guay, R. B., & McDaniel, E. D. (1977). The relationship between mathematics achievement and spatial abilities among elementary school children. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 8(3), 211–215. doi:10.2307/748522.
Guillaume, M., Nys, J., Mussolin, C., & Content, A. (2013). Differences in the acuity of the approximate number system in adults: The effect of mathematical ability. Acta Psychologica, 144(3), 506–512. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.09.001.
Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Beilock, S. L., & Levine, S. C. (2012). The relation between spatial skill and early number knowledge: The role of the linear number line. Developmental Psychology, 48(5), 1229–1241. doi:10.1037/a0027433.
Halberda, J., Ly, R., Wilmer, J. B., Naiman, D. Q., & Germine, L. (2012). Number sense across the lifespan as revealed by a massive Internet-based sample. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(28), 11116–11120. doi:10.1073/pnas.1200196109.
Halberda, J., Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature, 455, 665–668. doi:10.1038/nature07246.
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50(3), 346–363. doi:10.1002/bimj.200810425.
Inglis, M., Attridge, N., Batchelor, S., & Gilmore, C. (2011). Non-verbal number acuity correlates with symbolic mathematics achievement: But only in children. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(6), 1222–1229. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0154-1.
Inglis, M., & Gilmore, C. (2013). Sampling from the mental number line: How are approximate number system representations formed? Cognition, 129(1), 63–69. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.06.003.
Inglis, M., & Gilmore, C. (2014). Indexing the approximate number system. Acta Psychologica, 145, 147–155. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.11.009.
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007.
James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2013). An introduction to statistical learning (Vol. 6). New York: Springer.
Kaufman, E. L., Lord, M. W., Reese, T. W., & Volkmann, J. (1949). The discrimination of visual number. The American Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 498–525. doi:10.2307/1418556.
Keller, L., & Libertus, M. (2015). Inhibitory control may not explain the link between approximation and math abilities in kindergarteners from middle class families. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 685. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00685.
Kirk, E. P., & Ashcraft, M. H. (2001). Telling stories: The perils and promise of using verbal reports to study math strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 157–175. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.157.
Kolkman, M. E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2013). Early numerical development and the role of non-symbolic and symbolic skills. Learning and Instruction, 25, 95–103. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.12.001.
Kurdek, L. A., & Sinclair, R. J. (2001). Predicting reading and mathematics achievement in fourth-grade children from kindergarten readiness scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 451–455. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.451.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2015). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/package=lmerTest.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310.
Leibovich, T., & Henik, A. (2013). Magnitude processing in non-symbolic stimuli. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(June), 375. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00375.
Libertus, M. E., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2011). Preschool acuity of the approximate number system correlates with school math ability. Developmental Science, 14(6), 1292–1300. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01080.x.
Libertus, M. E., Woldorff, M. G., & Brannon, E. M. (2007). Electrophysiological evidence for notation independence in numerical processing. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3, 1. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-3-1.
Lindskog, M., Winman, A., Juslin, P., & Poom, L. (2013). Measuring acuity of the approximate number system reliably and validly: The evaluation of an adaptive test procedure. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 510. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00510.
Lipton, J. S., & Spelke, E. S. (2005). Preschool children’s mapping of number words to nonsymbolic numerosities. Child Development, 76(5), 978–988. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00891.x.
Lonnemann, J., Linkersdörfer, J., Hasselhorn, M., & Lindberg, S. (2013). Developmental changes in the association between approximate number representations and addition skills in elementary school children. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 783. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00783.
Luwel, K., & Verschaffel, L. (2003). Adapting strategy choices to situational factors: The effect of time pressure on children’s numerosity judgement strategies. Psychologica Belgica, 43, 269–295.
Luwel, K., Verschaffel, L., Onghena, P., & De Corte, E. (2003a). Flexibility in strategy use: Adaptation of numerosity judgement strategies to task characteristics. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15(2), 247–266. doi:10.1080/09541440244000139.
Luwel, K., Verschaffel, L., Onghena, P., & De Corte, E. (2003b). Strategic aspects of numerosity judgment: The effect of task characteristics. Experimental Psychology, 50(1), 63–75. doi:10.1026//1618-3169.50.1.63.
Lyons, I. M., Ansari, D., & Beilock, S. L. (2015a). Qualitatively different coding of symbolic and nonsymbolic numbers in the human brain. Human Brain Mapping, 36(2), 475–488. doi:10.1002/hbm.22641.
Lyons, I. M., Nuerk, H.-C., & Ansari, D. (2015b). Rethinking the implications of numerical ratio effects for understanding the development of representational precision and numerical processing across formats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 1021–1035. doi:10.1037/xge0000094.
Mandler, G., & Shebo, B. J. (1982). Subitizing: An analysis of its component processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(1), 1–22. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.111.1.1.
Mazzocco, M. M. M., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2011). Preschoolers’ precision of the approximate number system predicts later school mathematics performance. PLoS One, 6, e23749. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023749.
Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Myers, G. F. (2003). Complexities in identifying and defining mathematics learning disability in the primary school-age years. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 218–253. doi:10.1007/s11881-003-0011-7.
Mundy, E., & Gilmore, C. K. (2009). Children’s mapping between symbolic and nonsymbolic representations of number. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103(4), 490–502. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.02.003.
Nieder, A. (2011). The neural code for number. In S. Dehaene & E. M. Brannon (Eds.), Space, time and number in the brain: Searching for the foundations of mathematical thought (pp. 103–118). London: Academic Press.
Nieder, A. (2013). Coding of abstract quantity by “number neurons” of the primate brain. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 199(1), 1–16.
Nieder, A., & Dehaene, S. (2009). Representation of number in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 32, 185–208. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135550.
Nieder, A., Freedman, D. J., & Miller, E. K. (2002). Representation of the quantity of visual items in the primate prefrontal cortex. Science, 297(5587), 1708–1711.
Noël, M. P., & Rousselle, L. (2011). Developmental changes in the profiles of dyscalculia: an explanation based on a double exact-and-approximate number representation model. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 165. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00165.
Piazza, M. (2010). Neurocognitive start-up tools for symbolic number representations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(12), 542–551. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.008.
Piazza, M., Izard, V., Pinel, P., Le Bihan, D., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Tuning curves for approximate numerosity in the human intraparietal sulcus. Neuron 44(3), 547–555
Price, G. R., Palmer, D., Battista, C., & Ansari, D. (2012). Nonsymbolic numerical magnitude comparison: Reliability and validity of different task variants and outcome measures, and their relationship to arithmetic achievement in adults. Acta Psychologica, 140(1), 50–57. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.02.008.
Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 510–532. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510.
Reuhkala, M. (2001). Mathematical skills in ninth-graders: Relationship with visuo-spatial abilities and working memory. Educational Psychology, 21(4), 387–399. doi:10.1080/01443410120090786.
Revkin, S. K., Piazza, M., Izard, V., Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S. (2008). Does subitizing reflect numerical estimation? Psychological Science, 19(6), 607–614. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02130.x.
Robinson, K. M. (2001). The validity of verbal reports in children’s subtraction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 211–222. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.211.
Russo, J. E., Johnson, E. J., & Stephens, D. L. (1989). The validity of verbal protocols. Memory & Cognition, 17(6), 759–769. doi:10.3758/BF03202637.
Schneider, M., Beeres, K., Coban, L., Merz, S., Susan Schmidt, S., Stricker, J., & De Smedt, B. (2016). Associations of non-symbolic and symbolic numerical magnitude processing with mathematical competence: A meta-analysis. Developmental Science. doi:10.1111/desc.12372.
Seyler, D. J., Kirk, E. P., & Ashcraft, M. H. (2003). Elementary Subtraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(6), 1339–1352. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.6.1339.
Singmann, H., Bolker, B., & Westfall, J. (2015). afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/package=afex.
Smets, K., Sasanguie, D., Szücs, D., & Reynvoet, B. (2015). The effect of different methods to construct non-symbolic stimuli in numerosity estimation and comparison. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(3), 310–325. doi:10.1080/20445911.2014.996568.
Smith-Chant, B. L., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2003). Doing as they are told and telling it like it is: Self-reports in mental arithmetic. Memory and Cognition, 31(4), 516–528. doi:10.3758/BF03196093.
Soltész, F., Szucs, D., & Szucs, L. (2010). Relationships between magnitude representation, counting and memory in 4- to 7-year-old children: a developmental study. Behavioral and Brain Functions: BBF, 6, 13. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-6-13.
St Clair-Thompson, H. L., & Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Executive functions and achievements in school: Shifting, updating, inhibition, and working memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(4), 745–759. doi:10.1080/17470210500162854.
Szűcs, D., Nobes, A., Devine, A., Gabriel, F. C., & Gebuis, T. (2013). Visual stimulus parameters seriously compromise the measurement of approximate number system acuity and comparative effects between adults and children. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 444. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00444.
Trick, L. M., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1994). Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision. Psychological Review, 101(1), 80–102. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.80.
van den Berg, B. A., Reinders, M. J. T., de Ridder, D., & de Beer, T. A. P. (2015). Insight into neutral and disease-associated human genetic variants through interpretable predictors. PLoS One, 10(3), 1–17. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120729.
van Marle, K., Chu, F. W., Li, Y., & Geary, D. C. (2014). Acuity of the approximate number system and preschoolers’ quantitative development. Developmental Science, 17(4), 492–505. doi:10.1111/desc.12143.
Vanbinst, K., Ghesquière, P., & De Smedt, B. (2012). Numerical magnitude representations and individual differences in children’s arithmetic strategy use. Mind, Brain, and Education, 6(3), 129–136. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2012.01148.x.
Verguts, T., & Fias, W. (2004). Representation of number in animals and humans: A neural model. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(9), 1493–1504. doi:10.1162/0898929042568497.
Acknowledgements
The current research was supported by the Leibniz-Competition Fund (SAW) providing funding to Elise Klein, supporting Stefan Huber as well as by the German Research Foundation (DFG) providing funding to Korbinian Moeller (MO 2525/2-1), supporting Julia F. Dietrich as well as the Margarete von-Wrangell Fellowship of the European Social Fonds (ESF) and the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts Baden-Wuerttemberg, supporting Elise Klein. We thank Frauke Griebel and Sarah Weber for their support in coding the verbal reports.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Funding
The current research was supported by the Leibniz-Competition Fund (SAW) providing funding to Elise Klein, supporting Stefan Huber as well as by the German Research Foundation (DFG) providing funding to Korbinian Moeller (MO 2525/2-1), supporting Julia F. Dietrich as well as the Margarete von-Wrangell Fellowship of the European Social Fonds (ESF) and the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts Baden-Wuerttemberg, supporting Elise Klein.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Availability of data and material
Data analysed during this study are included in the supplementary information files.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dietrich, J.F., Nuerk, HC., Klein, E. et al. Set size influences the relationship between ANS acuity and math performance: a result of different strategies?. Psychological Research 83, 590–612 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0907-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0907-1