•We examined visual and tactile enumeration among adults with developmental dyscalculia (DD) and matched controls.•DD participants were less accurate than controls in canonical arrangements of 5–9 ...dots and in random arrangements of 5 dots.•DD participants were less accurate in tactile enumeration, most profoundly in neighboring finger-counting arrangements.•We showed a modal-independent pattern recognition deficit in those with DD.•We emphasized the role of fingers in ordinal and cardinal representation of numbers.
Developmental dyscalculia (DD) is characterized by lower numerical and finger-related skills. Studies of enumeration among those DD that suggested core deficiency in pattern recognition, working memory or/and attention were mostly carried out in the visual modality. In our study, we examined visual (dots) enumeration of 1–10 stimuli and tactile (vibration) enumeration of 1–10 fingers among DD and matched-control adults. We used 800-ms stimuli exposure time of either random/non-neighboring or canonical/neighboring stimuli arrangements (visual/tactile). Compared to controls, those with DD responded faster in visual random enumeration and did not differ in reaction time (RT) of canonical stimuli arrangements. However, while the control group had near perfect accuracy in random stimuli arrangements of up to five stimuli, DD participants performed accurately for only up to four stimuli, and they were less accurate in the canonical stimuli arrangements in the counting range. In the tactile task, DD participants showed less accurate tactile enumeration only for neighboring arrangements, more profoundly for finger counting (FC) patterns. The longer exposure time in the visual task enabled us to explore pattern recognition effects when working memory and attention loads were low. We discuss possible modal-independent deficits in pattern recognition and working memory on enumeration performance among those with DD and the unique role of fingers in ordinal and cardinal representation of numbers.
The menstrual cycle is characterized partially by fluctuations of the ovarian hormones estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P4), which are implicated in the regulation of cognition. Research on attention ...in the different stages of the menstrual cycle is eclectic with discrepancies in attention definitions, and the three attentional networks (alerting, orienting and executive) and their interaction were not explored during the menstrual cycle. In the current study, we used the ANT-I (attentional network test – interactions) to examine naturally cycling women (NC) and women using oral contraceptives (OC). We tested their performance at two time points that fit, in natural cycles, the follicular phase and the luteal phase. We found no differences in performance between the two time points (day 4 / day 18) for the OC group: the response pattern replicated known ANT-I findings. However, the NC group showed differences between the two time points. In the follicular phase, responses replicated known ANT-I results, but in the luteal phase, alertness did not interact with executive and orienting networks, resulting in a larger congruency effect (executive network) when attention was not oriented to the target in alerting and no alerting conditions. Results-driven exploratory regression analysis of E2 and P4 suggested that change in P4 from the follicular phase/day 4 to the luteal phase/day 18 was a mediator for the alerting effect found between groups. In conclusion, the alerting state, found with or without alertness manipulation, suggests that there is a progesterone-mediated activation of the alerting system during the luteal phase.
•ANT-I was used to study attention in women using vs. not using oral contraceptives.•Oral contraceptive users and follicular phase women replicated known ANT-I effects.•Women in luteal phase showed an alertness effect without an alertness manipulation.•P4 increase from follicular to luteal phase mediated the alertness by group effect.•Elevated P4 may induce tonic alertness in the luteal phase.
Subitizing is a fast and accurate process of enumerating small quantities. Whether subitizing carried out in the tactile modality is under debate. We previously found a moderately increasing RT slope ...from one to four stimuli and a large decrease in RT for five stimuli when using one hand. Yet, a high error rate was observed, making it difficult to determine if the RT pattern found was indeed subitizing. To increase accuracy, we carried out training of the tactile enumeration task using one hand for 6 days. We compared performance in the trained and additional non-trained tasks between two groups—the 6-day training group (6DT) and the non-trained controls (C)—after three periods (1 week, 1 and 6 months after the training of the 6DT group ended). Results showed an increase in accuracy rates for both groups but a decrease in RT for the 6DT group only for the trained task. This RT improvement was present even after 6 months. Importantly, the RT slope of one-hand enumeration did not change after training, showing a moderately increased slope up to four stimuli and a decrease for five stimuli. Our study shows the training long-term effect on tactile enumeration and emphasizes the embodiment of finger counting on enumeration. Two possible enumeration processes are discussed—accelerated counting and subitizing—both based on spatial cues and pattern recognition of familiarized finger-counting patterns.
Our study explores tactile enumeration using both hands and investigates the effects of numerosity range’s (NR) on general enumeration. In Experiment 1, using custom-made vibro-tactile apparatus, we ...replicated results of Cohen, Naparstek, and Henik (2014, Acta Psychologica, 150C, 26–34) and again found a moderate increase in RT up to four stimuli and then a decrease for five stimuli. In Experiment 2, we used a within participants design and compared NR 1 to 5 and 1 to 10 in tactile and visual enumeration. The results showed that enumeration for NR 5 to 1 was faster than for NR 1 to 10, especially for numerosities four and five. Within NR 1 to 10, in the visual modality the subitizing range was 4, the counting range was from 5 to 9, and there was an end effect of 10 dots. In the tactile modality, when excluding one-hand arrangements, the subitizing range was 2, the counting range was from 3 to 5, there was an acceleration of counting from 5 and on, and there was an end effect for 10 stimuli that was stronger than for 10 visual stimuli. We suggest that NR influences enumeration and that number-hand association (i.e. resulting from finger counting) influences enumeration, resulting in faster counting.
Our study explores various aspects of enumerating small quantities in the tactile modality. Fingertips of one hand were stimulated by a vibro-tactile apparatus (for 100/800ms). Between 1 and 5 ...stimuli were presented to the right or the left hand and applied to neighboring (e.g., thumb–index–middle) or non-neighboring (e.g., thumb–middle–pinkie) fingers. The results showed a moderate increase in RT up to 4 stimuli and then a decrease for 5 stimuli. Right hand stimulation evoked more accurate performance than left hand stimulation only under short exposures (100ms). Importantly, when the stimuli were presented to neighboring fingers, the accuracy rate was higher and the RT was faster than when presented to non-neighboring fingers. We discuss the results and suggest that when the stimuli are presented to one hand the subitizing range is 4 rather than 3. Furthermore, the right hand advantage and the efficiency for neighboring fingers are further support for the association between number and spatial arrangement of the fingers.
•We examined passive tactile enumeration on one hand at 100/800ms exposure times.•The results show a moderate increase in RT, regardless of stimuli exposure time.•We suggest that when using one hand the subitizing range is 4, rather than 3.•Stimuli applied to neighboring fingers yielded more efficient responses.•The right hand was more accurate than the left hand under brief exposure time.
•Tactile enumeration and brain plasticity in acalculia following left IPS infarct.•Steep RT slope in acute phase and gradual decrease in slope over time.•VBM analysis shows increase in gray matter ...(GM) in right middle occipital cortex.•Results support tactile subitizing based on embodied pattern recognition.•Improved enumeration coincides with GM change supports “sense of magnitude” theory.
Enumeration is one of the building blocks of arithmetic and fingers are used as a counting tool in early steps. Subitizing—fast and accurate enumeration of small quantities—has been vastly studied in the visual modality, but less in the tactile modality. We explored tactile enumeration using fingers, and gray matter (GM) changes using voxel-based morphometry (VBM), in acalculia. We examined JD, a 22-year-old female with acalculia following a stroke to the left inferior parietal cortex. JD and a neurologically healthy normal comparison (NC) group reported how many fingers were stimulated. JD was tested at several time points, including at acute and chronic phases. Using the sensory intact hand for tactile enumeration, JD showed deficit in the acute phase, compared to the NC group, and improvement in the chronic phase of (1) the RT slope of enumerating up to four stimuli, (2) enumerating neighboring fingers, and (3) arithmetic fluency performance. Moreover, VBM analysis showed a larger GM volume for JD relative to the NC group in the right middle occipital cortex, most profoundly in the chronic phase. JD’s performance serves as a first glance of tactile enumeration in acalculia. Pattern-recognition-based results support the suggestion of subitizing being the enumeration process when using one hand. Moreover, the increase in GM in the occipital cortex lays the groundwork for studying the innate and primitive ability to perceive and evaluate sizes or amounts—“sense of magnitude”— as a multisensory magnitude area and as part of a recovery path for deficits in basic numerical abilities.
Representations of the fingers are embodied in our cognition and influence performance in enumeration tasks. Among deaf signers, the fingers also serve as a tool for communication in sign language. ...Previous studies in normal hearing (NH) participants showed effects of embodiment (i.e., embodied numerosity) on tactile enumeration using the fingers of one hand. In this research, we examined the influence of extensive visuo‐manual use on tactile enumeration among the deaf. We carried out four enumeration task experiments, using 1–5 stimuli, on a profoundly deaf group (n = 16) and a matching NH group (n = 15): (a) tactile enumeration using one hand, (b) tactile enumeration using two hands, (c) visual enumeration of finger signs, and (d) visual enumeration of dots. In the tactile tasks, we found salient embodied effects in the deaf group compared to the NH group. In the visual enumeration of finger signs task, we controlled the meanings of the stimuli presentation type (e.g., finger‐counting habit, fingerspelled letters, both or neither). Interestingly, when comparing fingerspelled letters to neutrals (i.e., not letters or numerical finger‐counting signs), an inhibition pattern was observed among the deaf. The findings uncover the influence of rich visuo‐manual experiences and language on embodied representations. In addition, we propose that these influences can partially account for the lag in mathematical competencies in the deaf compared to NH peers. Lastly, we further discuss how our findings support a contemporary model for mental numerical representations and finger‐counting habits.
PDF
