Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Numerical pairs and ratios for the numerical comparison task.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Figure 1.

Paper-and-pencil measure.

Figures A, B, and C are examples of symbolic items. Figures D, E and F are examples of nonsymbolic items.

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Figure 2.

Grade by format interaction.

Bar graph representing overall performance of participants in each grade for symbolic and nonsymbolic items. Grade 1 participants were significantly better at nonsymbolic items compared to symbolic items. Participants in grades 2 and 3 did not demonstrate any differences between conditions. Standard errors are represented by the error bars attached to each column.

More »

Figure 2 Expand

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations (S.D.).

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Partial correlations controlling for age in months (Gr. 1–3).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Figure 3.

Correlation between Math Fluency scores and magnitude comparison scores.

Scatterplot showing significant correlation between standard scores on the Math Fluency subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson III battery and overall mean score of the magnitude comparison task (symbolic and nonsymbolic combined) for all participants. The solid line represents the linear regression line for this relationship.

More »

Figure 3 Expand

Figure 4.

Correlation between Calculation scores and magnitude comparison scores.

Scatterplot showing significant correlation between standard scores on the Calculation subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson III battery and overall mean score of the magnitude comparison task (symbolic and nonsymbolic combined) for all participants. The solid line represents the linear regression line for this relationship.

More »

Figure 4 Expand

Table 4.

Grade 1 correlations between arithmetic achievement and magnitude comparison.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Grade 2 correlations between arithmetic achievement and magnitude comparison.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Grade 3 correlations between arithmetic achievement and magnitude comparison.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Linear regression analyses predicting Math Fluency raw scores with chronological age, Reading Fluency, visual spatial working memory, verbal working memory, IQ, symbolic scores and nonsymbolic scores as predictors.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

Linear regression analyses predicting Calculation raw scores with chronological age, Reading Fluency, visual spatial working memory, verbal working memory, IQ, symbolic scores and nonsymbolic scores as predictors.

More »

Table 8 Expand