Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-12
The ratio processing system and its role in fraction understanding: Evidence from a match-to-sample task in children and adults with and without dyscalculia
It has been hypothesised that the human neurocognitive architecture may include a perceptual ratio processing system (RPS) that supports symbolic fraction understanding. In the present study, we aimed to provide further evidence for the existence of the RPS by exploring whether individuals with a range of math skills are indeed perceptually sensitive to non-symbolic ratio magnitudes. We also aimed to test to what extent the RPS may underlie symbolic fraction processing in those individuals. In a match-to-sample task, typical adults, elementary school children, and adults with dyscalculia were asked to match a non-symbolic ratio (i.e., target) to one of two non-symbolic ratios (i.e., the match and distractor). We found that all groups of participants were sensitive to the ratio between the match and the distractor, suggesting a common reliance on the RPS. This ratio sensitivity was also observed in another group of typical adults who had to choose which of two symbolic fractions match a non-symbolic ratio, indicating that the RPS may also contribute to symbolic fraction understanding. However, no ratio dependence was observed when participants had to choose which of two symbolic fractions match another symbolic fraction, suggesting that reliance on the RPS in symbolic fraction processing is limited and may not support exact fraction processing.
BaileyD. H.HoardM. K.NugentL.GearyD. C. (2012). Competence with fractions predicts gains in mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(3), 447–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.06.004
3.
BaileyD. H.ZhouX.ZhangY.CuiJ.FuchsL. S.JordanN. C.. . .SieglerR. S.et al. (2015). Development of fraction concepts and procedures in U.S. and Chinese children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 129, 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.08.006
4.
BonatoM.FabbriS.UmiltàC.ZorziM. (2007). The mental representation of numerical fractions: Real or integer?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1410–1419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.6.1410
5.
BoothJ. L.NewtonK. J. (2012). Fractions: Could they really be the gatekeeper’s doorman?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(4), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.07.001
6.
BoyerT. W.LevineS. C.HuttenlocherJ. (2008). Development of proportional reasoning: Where young children go wrong. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1478–1490. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013110
7.
BraithwaiteD. W.SieglerR. S. (2017). Developmental changes in the whole number bias. Developmental Science, 21(2), Article e12541. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12541
8.
BrysbaertM. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72
9.
ButterworthB. (2005). Developmental dyscalculia. In CampbellJ. I. D. (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 455–467). Psychology Press.
10.
ButterworthB. (2011). Foundational numerical capacities and the origins of dyscalculia. In DehaeneS.BrannonE. (Eds.), Space, time and number in the brain (pp. 249–265). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385948-8.00016-5
11.
CarpenterT. P.KepnerH.CorbittM. K.LindquistM. M.ReysR. E. (1980). Results and implications of the second NAEP mathematics assessments: Elementary school. The Arithmetic Teacher, 27(8), 10–12, 44–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41191725
12.
CavalliE.ColéP.LeloupG.Poracchia-GeorgeF.Sprenger-CharollesL.El AhmadiA. (2018). Screening for dyslexia in French-speaking university students: An evaluation of the detection accuracy of the Alouette test. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(3), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417704637
13.
ChanW.-H.LeuY.-C.ChenC.-M. (2007). Exploring group-wise conceptual deficiencies of fractions for fifth and sixth graders in Taiwan. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 26–57. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.1.26-58
14.
ClarkeD. M.RocheA. (2009). Students’ fraction comparison strategies as a window into robust understanding and possible pointers for instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(1), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-009-9198-9
15.
CowanN. (2016). Working memory maturation: Can we get at the essence of cognitive growth?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(2), 239–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615621279
16.
De BrauwerJ.VergutsT.FiasW. (2006). The representation of multiplication facts: Developmental changes in the problem size, five, and tie effects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.11.004
17.
DehaeneS. (1997). La bosse des maths. Odile Jacob.
DehaeneS.Dehaene-LambertzG.CohenL. (1998). Abstract representations of numbers in the animal and human brain. Trends in Neurosciences, 21(8), 355–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(98)01263-6
20.
De SmedtB.GilmoreC. K. (2011). Defective number module or impaired access? Numerical magnitude processing in first graders with mathematical difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(2), 278–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.09.003
21.
De SmedtB.NoëlM.-P.GilmoreC.AnsariD. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2013.06.001
22.
FaulkenberryT. J.PierceB. H. (2011). Mental representations in fraction comparison: Holistic versus component-based strategies. Experimental Psychology, 58(6), 480–489. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000116
23.
FazioL. K.BaileyD. H.ThompsonC. A.SieglerR. S. (2014). Relations of different types of numerical magnitude representations to each other and to mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 123, 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.01.013
GearyD. C. (2011). Consequences, characteristics, and causes of mathematical learning disabilities and persistent low achievement in mathematics. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 32(3), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e318209edef
González-ForteJ. M.FernándezC.Van HoofJ.Van DoorenW. (2019). Exploring students’ reasoning about fraction magnitude. In GravenM.VenkatH.EssienA.ValeP. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp.272–279). Pretoria: PME.
28.
HalberdaJ.MazzoccoM. M. M.FeigensonL. (2008). Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature, 455, 665–668.
29.
HansenN.RinneL.JordanN. C.YeA.ResnickI.RodriguesJ. (2017). Co-development of fraction magnitude knowledge and mathematics achievement from fourth through sixth grade. Learning and Individual Differences, 60, 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.10.005
30.
HurstM.CordesS. (2016). Rational-number comparison across notation: Fractions, decimals, and whole numbers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(2), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000140
31.
HurstM. A.CordesS. (2018). Attending to relations: Proportional reasoning in 3- to 6-year-old children. Developmental Psychology, 54(3), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000440
32.
ImboI.VandierendonckA. (2008). Effects of problem size, operation, and working-memory span on simple-arithmetic strategies: Differences between children and adults?Psychological Research, 72(3), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-007-0112-8
IuculanoT. (2016). Neurocognitive accounts of developmental dyscalculia and its remediation. In Progress in Brain Research (Vol. 227, pp. 305–333). Elsevier.
35.
IuculanoT.TangJ.HallC. W. B.ButterworthB. (2008). Core information processing deficits in developmental dyscalculia and low numeracy. Developmental Science, 11(5), 669–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00716.x
36.
JacobS. N.NiederA. (2009a). Notation-independent representation of fractions in the human parietal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(14), 4652–4657. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0651-09.2009
37.
JacobS. N.NiederA. (2009b). Tuning to non-symbolic proportions in the human frontoparietal cortex: Representation of proportions in the human brain. European Journal of Neuroscience, 30(7), 1432–1442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06932.x
38.
JacobS. N.VallentinD.NiederA. (2012). Relating magnitudes: The brain’s code for proportions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(3), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.02.002
39.
JeffreysH. (1961). Theory of Probability. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
40.
JeongY.LevineS. C.HuttenlocherJ. (2007). The development of proportional reasoning: Effect of continuous versus discrete quantities. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8(2), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248370701202471
41.
JordanN. C.HansenN.FuchsL. S.SieglerR. S.GerstenR.MicklosD. (2013). Developmental predictors of fraction concepts and procedures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.001
42.
KallaiA. Y.TzelgovJ. (2009). A generalized fraction: An entity smaller than one on the mental number line. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(6), 1845–1864. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016892
43.
KallaiA. Y.TzelgovJ. (2012). When meaningful components interrupt the processing of the whole: The case of fractions. Acta Psychologica, 139(2), 358–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.11.009
44.
KalraP. B.BinzakJ. V.MatthewsP. G.HubbardE. M. (2020). Symbolic fractions elicit an analog magnitude representation in school-age children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 195, Article 104844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104844
45.
KierenT. E. (1981). Five faces of mathematical knowledge building. Department of Secondary Education, University of Alberta.
46.
KloostermanP. (2010). Mathematics skills of 17-year-olds in the United States: 1978 to 2004. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(1), 20–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40539363
47.
LeeM. D.WagenmakersE.-J. (2013). Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139087759
48.
LefavraisP. (1967). Test de l’Alouette.
49.
LeibovichT.KatzinN.HarelM.HenikA. (2017). From “sense of number” to “sense of magnitude”: The role of continuous magnitudes in numerical cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e164. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16000960
50.
LeslieA. M.GelmanR.GallistelC. R. (2008). The generative basis of natural number concepts. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(6), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.03.004
51.
LewisM. R.MatthewsP. G.HubbardE. M. (2016). Neurocognitive architectures and the nonsymbolic foundations of fractions understanding. In BerchD. B.GearyD. C.KoepkeK. M. (Eds.), Development of mathematical cognition (pp. 141–164). Academic Press.
52.
MackN. K. (1990). Learning fractions with understanding: Building on informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/749454
53.
MackN. K. (1995). Confounding whole-number and fraction concepts when building on informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(5), 422. https://doi.org/10.2307/749431
54.
MatthewsP. G. (2015, March). Delimiting and leveraging children’s natural sense of proportion [paper session]. Poster presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD), Philadelphia, PA, United States.
55.
MatthewsP. G.ChesneyD. L. (2015). Fractions as percepts? Exploring cross-format distance effects for fractional magnitudes. Cognitive Psychology, 78, 28–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.01.006
MatthewsP. G.LewisM. R. (2017). Fractions we cannot ignore: The nonsymbolic ratio congruity effect. Cognitive Science, 41(6), 1656–1674. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12419
58.
MatthewsP. G.LewisM. R.HubbardE. M. (2016). Individual differences in nonsymbolic ratio processing predict symbolic math performance. Psychological Science, 27(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615617799
59.
MatthewsP. G.ZiolsR. (2019). What’s perception got to do with it? Re-framing foundations for rational number concepts. In NortonA.AlibaliM. W. (Eds.), Constructing number (pp. 213–235). Springer.
60.
MazzoccoM. M. M.DevlinK. T. (2008). Parts and ‘holes’: Gaps in rational number sense among children with vs. without mathematical learning disabilities. Developmental Science, 11(5), 681–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00717.x
61.
MazzoccoM. M. M.FeigensonL.HalberdaJ. (2011). Impaired acuity of the approximate number system underlies mathematical learning disability (dyscalculia): Impaired numerical acuity contributes to MLD. Child Development, 82(4), 1224–1237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01608.x
62.
MazzoccoM. M. M.MyersG. F.LewisK. E.HanichL. B.MurphyM. M. (2013). Limited knowledge of fraction representations differentiates middle school students with mathematics learning disability (dyscalculia) versus low mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(2), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.01.005
63.
McCrinkK.SpelkeE. S.DehaeneS.PicaP. (2013). Non-symbolic halving in an Amazonian indigene group. Developmental Science, 16(3), 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12037
MeertG.GrégoireJ.NoëlM.-P. (2009). Rational numbers: Componential versus holistic representation of fractions in a magnitude comparison task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1598–1616. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802511162
66.
MeertG.GrégoireJ.NoëlM.-P. (2010). Comparing 5/7 and 2/9: Adults can do it by accessing the magnitude of the whole fractions. Acta Psychologica, 135(3), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.07.014
67.
MeertG.GrégoireJ.SeronX.NoëlM.-P. (2012). The mental representation of the magnitude of symbolic and nonsymbolic ratios in adults. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(4), 702–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.632485
68.
MeertG.GrégoireJ.SeronX.NoëlM.-P. (2013). The processing of symbolic and nonsymbolic ratios in school-age children. PLOS ONE, 8(11), Article e82002. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082002
MockJ.HuberS.BloechleJ.BahnmuellerJ.MoellerK.KleinE. (2019). Processing symbolic and non-symbolic proportions: Domain-specific numerical and domain-general processes in intraparietal cortex. Brain Research, 1714, 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2019.02.029
71.
MockJ.HuberS.BloechleJ.DietrichJ. F.BahnmuellerJ.RennigJ.MoellerK., et al. (2018). Magnitude processing of symbolic and non-symbolic proportions: An fMRI study. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12993-018-0141-z
72.
MöhringW.NewcombeN. S.LevineS. C.FrickA. (2016). Spatial proportional reasoning is associated with formal knowledge about fractions. Journal of Cognition and Development, 17(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2014.996289
73.
MoreyR. D.RomeijnJ. W.RouderJ. N. (2016). The philosophy of Bayes factors and the quantification of statistical evidence. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 72, 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2015.11.001
74.
MoyerR. S.LandauerT. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519–1520.
75.
NiY. (2001). Semantic domains of rational numbers and the acquisition of fraction equivalence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(3), 400–417. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1072
76.
NiY.ZhouY.-D. (2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_3
77.
ObersteinerA.Van DoorenW.Van HoofJ.VerschaffelL. (2013). The natural number bias and magnitude representation in fraction comparison by expert mathematicians. Learning and Instruction, 28, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.003
78.
PiazzaM. (2010). Neurocognitive start-up tools for symbolic number representations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(12), 542–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.008
79.
PiazzaM.FacoettiA.TrussardiA. N.BertelettiI.ConteS.LucangeliD.. . . ZorziM. (2010). Developmental trajectory of number acuity reveals a severe impairment in developmental dyscalculia. Cognition, 116(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.012
PitkethlyA.HuntingR. (1996). A review of recent research in the area of initial fraction concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30(1), 5–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00163751
RodriguesJ.JordanN. C. (2019). Identifying fraction measures as screeners of mathematics risk status. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52, 480–497.
84.
RousselleL.NoëlM. P. (2007). Basic numerical skills in children with mathematics learning disabilities: A comparison of symbolic vs non-symbolic number magnitude processing. Cognition, 102(3), 361–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.01.005
85.
RumbaughD. M.WashburnD. A.BoysenS. T.CapaldiE. J. (1993). The development of numerical competence: Animal and human models. Lawrence Erlbaum.
86.
SchneiderM.SieglerR. S. (2010). Representations of the magnitudes of fractions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1227–1238. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018170
87.
SieglerR. S.DuncanG. J.Davis-KeanP. E.DuckworthK.ClaessensA.EngelM.. . . ChenM. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23(7), 691–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612440101
88.
SieglerR. S.FazioL. K.BaileyD. H.ZhouX. (2013). Fractions: The new frontier for theories of numerical development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.11.004
89.
SieglerR. S.PykeA. A. (2013). Developmental and individual differences in understanding of fractions. Developmental Psychology, 49(10), 1994–2004. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031200
90.
SieglerR. S.ThompsonC. A.SchneiderM. (2011). An integrated theory of whole number and fractions development. Cognitive Psychology, 62(4), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.03.001
StafylidouS.VosniadouS. (2004). The development of students’ understanding of the numerical value of fractions. Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.015
StiglerJ. W.GivvinK. B.ThompsonB. J. (2010). What community college developmental mathematics students understand about mathematics. MathAMATYC Educator, 1(3), 4–16.
95.
StreeflandL. (1991). Fractions in realistic mathematics education: A paradigm of developmental research (Vol. 8). Springer Science+Business Media.
96.
VallentinD.NiederA. (2010). Representations of visual proportions in the primate posterior parietal and prefrontal cortices: Proportion processing in the monkey brain. European Journal of Neuroscience, 32(8), 1380–1387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07427.x
97.
VamvakoussiX.VosniadouS. (2010). How many decimals are there between two fractions ? Aspects of secondary school students’ understanding of rational numbers and their notation. Cognition and Instruction, 28(2), 181–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370001003676603
98.
Van HoofJ.LijnenT.VerschaffelL.Van DoorenW. (2013). Are secondary school students still hampered by the natural number bias? A reaction time study on fraction comparison tasks. Research in Mathematics Education, 15(2), 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2013.797747
WoodcockR. W.MatherN.McGrewK. S.WendlingB. J. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.
101.
YoshidaH.SawanoK. (2002). Overcoming cognitive obstacles in learning fractions: Equal-partitioning and equal-whole. Japanese Psychological Research, 44(4), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5884.00021
102.
ZhangL.FangQ.GabrielF. C.SzucsD. (2014). The componential processing of fractions in adults and children: Effects of stimuli variability and contextual interference. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 981. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00981
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
