It is not yet understood how children acquire the meaning of numerical symbols and most existing research has focused on the role of approximate non-symbolic representations of number in this process (see Piazza, (Trends in Cognitive 14(12):542–551, 2010). However, numerical symbols necessitate an understanding of both order and magnitude, therefore order likely also plays a role in learning about number. Here, we used an artificial symbol-learning paradigm to contrast learning approximate numerical magnitude with learning numerical order. Thirty-two adult participants were randomly assigned to either the magnitude training group, in which they were trained to associate novel abstract symbols with non-symbolic numerical magnitudes, or the order training group, in which they were taught the ordinal sequence of the symbols, in analogy to the count sequence. Subsequently, electroencephalographic (EEG) data were recorded while participants completed a magnitude comparison task with the newly learned symbols. Comparing these newly acquired symbols affected event related potentials (ERPs) in a way that resembled comparisons of real numerical symbols [e.g. Temple & Posner, (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95(13):7836–7841, 1998)]. Furthermore, these ERP effects did not differ across learning groups, suggesting that adults formed similar representations regardless of method of instruction. In turn, the current findings highlight the potential role of ordinal information in symbolic acquisition.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Carey, S. (2009). The Origin of Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.
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, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.tine.2013.06.001.
Dehaene, S. (1996). The organization of brain activations in number comparison: event-related potentials and the additive-factors method. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(1), 47–68. doi:10.1162/jocn.19126.96.36.199.
Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense: how the mind creates mathematics, revised and updated edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
Göbel, S. M., Watson, S. E., Lervåg, A., & Hulme, C. (2014). Children’s arithmetic development: it is number knowledge, not the approximate number sense, that counts. Psychological Science, 25(3), 789–798. doi:10.1177/0956797613516471.
Hyde, D. C., & Spelke, E. S. (2009). All numbers are not equal: an electrophysiological investigation of small and large number representations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(6), 1039–1053.
Leibovich, T., & Ansari, D. (in press). The symbol-grounding problem in numerical cognition: a review of theory, evidence and outstanding questions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Libertus, M. E., Woldorff, M. G., & Brannon, E. M. (2007). Electrophysiological evidence for notation independence in numerical processing. Behavioral and Brain Functions : BBF, 3, 1. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-3-1.
Lyons, I. M., & Ansari, D. (2009). The cerebral basis of mapping nonsymbolic numerical quantities onto abstract symbols: an fMRI training study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(9), 1720–1735. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21124.
Lyons, I. M., Ansari, D., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). Symbolic estrangement: evidence against a strong association between numerical symbols and the quantities they represent. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General. doi:10.1037/a0027248.
Lyons, I. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2009). Beyond quantity: individual differences in working memory and the ordinal understanding of numerical symbols. Cognition, 113(2), 189–204. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.003.
Lyons, I. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Numerical ordering ability mediates the relation between number-sense and arithmetic competence. Cognition, 121(2), 256–261. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.07.009.
Lyons, I. M., Nuerk, H. C., & Ansari, D. (2015). 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.
Merkley, R. (2015). Beyond number sense: Contributions of domain-general processes to the development of numeracy in early childhood. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Oxford.
Merkley, R., & Scerif, G. (2015). Continuous visual properties of number influence the formation of novel symbolic representations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(9), 1860-1870. doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.994538.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological review, 63(2), 81.
Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215(5109), 1519.
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.
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.
Prinzmetal, W., McCool, C., & Park, S. (2005). Attention: Reaction time and accuracy reveal different mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 73–92.
Sasanguie, D., Defever, E., Maertens, B., & Reynvoet, B. (2013). The approximate number system is not predictive for symbolic number processing in kindergartners. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 271–280. doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.803581.
Szűcs, D., & Csépe, V. (2004). Similarities and differences in the coding of numerical and alphabetical order using acoustic stimulation as revealed by event-related potentials in humans. Neuroscience Letters, 360(1–2), 65–68. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2004.02.038.
Temple, E., & Posner, M. I. (1998). Brain mechanisms of quantity are similar in 5-year-old children and adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95(13), 7836–41. Retrieved from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=22775&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.
Turconi, E., Campbell, J. I. D., & Seron, X. (2006). Numerical order and quantity processing in number comparison. Cognition, 98(3), 273–285. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.12.002.
Turconi, E., Jemel, B., Rossion, B., & Seron, X. (2004). Electrophysiological evidence for differential processing of numerical quantity and order in humans. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 21(1), 22–38. doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.05.003.
Tzelgov, J., Yehene, V., Kotler, L., & Alon, A. (2000). Automatic comparisons of artificial digits never compared: learning linear ordering relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 103.
Van Opstal, F., Gevers, W., De Moor, W., & Verguts, T. (2008). Dissecting the symbolic distance effect: Comparison and priming effects in numerical and nonnumerical orders. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 419–425.
Vanbinst, K., Ghesquière, P., & De Smedt, B. (2014). Does numerical processing uniquely predict first graders’ future development of single-digit arithmetic? Learning and Individual Differences,. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.12.004.
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.
Wagner, J. B., & Johnson, S. C. (2011). An association between understanding cardinality and analog magnitude representations in preschoolers. Cognition, 119(1), 10–22.
Wiese, H. (2003). Iconic and non-iconic stages in number development: The role of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(9), 385–390. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00192-X.
Wynn, K. (1992). Children’s acquisition of the number words and the counting system. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 220–251.
Zhao, H., Chen, C., Zhang, H., Zhou, X., Mei, L., Chen, C., & Dong, Q. (2012). Is order the defining feature of magnitude representation? An ERP study on learning numerical magnitude and spatial order of artificial symbols. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e49565. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049565.
R. M. is supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada (NSERC) and A. S. and G. S. are supported by a James S. McDonnell Foundation Understanding Human Cognition Award.
About this article
Cite this article
Merkley, R., Shimi, A. & Scerif, G. Electrophysiological markers of newly acquired symbolic numerical representations: the role of magnitude and ordinal information. ZDM Mathematics Education 48, 279–289 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0751-y