4.6 Article

Cortical representations of numbers and nonsymbolic quantities expand and segregate in children from 5 to 8 years of age

期刊

PLOS BIOLOGY
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001935

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Arabic numerals play a crucial role in early childhood education, but the neural representation of numerals and their relation to nonsymbolic quantity in children is still unclear. Using fMRI and machine learning techniques, it was found that the cortical representations of numerals and nonsymbolic quantities change and segregate with learning and development from age 5 to age 8. These findings support the theory that the relation between symbolic and nonsymbolic quantity weakens with exposure to formal mathematics in children.
Number symbols, such as Arabic numerals, are cultural inventions that have transformed human mathematical skills. Although their acquisition is at the core of early elementary education in children, it remains unknown how the neural representations of numerals emerge during that period. It is also unclear whether these relate to an ontogenetically earlier sense of approximate quantity. Here, we used multivariate fMRI adaptation coupled with within- and between-format machine learning to probe the cortical representations of Arabic numerals and approximate nonsymbolic quantity in 89 children either at the beginning (age 5) or four years into formal education (age 8). Although the cortical representations of both numerals and nonsymbolic quantities expanded from age 5 to age 8, these representations also segregated with learning and development. Specifically, a format-independent neural representation of quantity was found in the right parietal cortex, but only for 5-year-olds. These results are consistent with the so-called symbolic estrangement hypothesis, which argues that the relation between symbolic and nonsymbolic quantity weakens with exposure to formal mathematics in children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据