↓ Skip to main content

Innate or Acquired? – Disentangling Number Sense and Early Number Competencies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Innate or Acquired? – Disentangling Number Sense and Early Number Competencies
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00571
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia Siemann, Franz Petermann

Abstract

The clinical profile termed developmental dyscalculia (DD) is a fundamental disability affecting children already prior to arithmetic schooling, but the formal diagnosis is often only made during school years. The manifold associated deficits depend on age, education, developmental stage, and task requirements. Despite a large body of studies, the underlying mechanisms remain dubious. Conflicting findings have stimulated opposing theories, each presenting enough empirical support to remain a possible alternative. A so far unresolved question concerns the debate whether a putative innate number sense is required for successful arithmetic achievement as opposed to a pure reliance on domain-general cognitive factors. Here, we outline that the controversy arises due to ambiguous conceptualizations of the number sense. It is common practice to use early number competence as a proxy for innate magnitude processing, even though it requires knowledge of the number system. Therefore, such findings reflect the degree to which quantity is successfully transferred into symbols rather than informing about quantity representation per se. To solve this issue, we propose a three-factor account and incorporate it into the partly overlapping suggestions in the literature regarding the etiology of different DD profiles. The proposed view on DD is especially beneficial because it is applicable to more complex theories identifying a conglomerate of deficits as underlying cause of DD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 24 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 33%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Mathematics 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2019.
All research outputs
#6,363,512
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,218
of 30,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,662
of 327,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#263
of 593 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,339 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 593 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.