title: Measuring acuity of the approximate number system reliably and validly: the evaluation of an adaptive test procedure.
abstract: Two studies investigated the reliability and predictive validity of commonly used measures and models of Approximate Number System acuity (ANS). Study 1 investigated reliability by both an empirical approach and a simulation of maximum obtainable reliability under ideal conditions. Results showed that common measures of the Weber fraction (w) are reliable only when using a substantial number of trials, even under ideal conditions. Study 2 compared different purported measures of ANS acuity as for convergent and predictive validity in a within-subjects design and evaluated an adaptive test using the ZEST algorithm. Results showed that the adaptive measure can reduce the number of trials needed to reach acceptable reliability. Only direct tests with non-symbolic numerosity discriminations of stimuli presented simultaneously were related to arithmetic fluency. This correlation remained when controlling for general cognitive ability and perceptual speed. Further, the purported indirect measure of ANS acuity in terms of the Numeric Distance Effect (NDE) was not reliable and showed no sign of predictive validity. The non-symbolic NDE for reaction time was significantly related to direct w estimates in a direction contrary to the expected. Easier stimuli were found to be more reliable, but only harder (7:8 ratio) stimuli contributed to predictive validity.
authors: Department of Psychology, Uppsala University Uppsala, Sweden.
authors: Marcus
authors: M
authors: Lindskog
authors: Anders
authors: A
authors: Winman
authors: Peter
authors: P
authors: Juslin
authors: Leo
authors: L
authors: Poom
keywords: ZEST; adaptive measure; approximate number system; reliability; validity
references: Science. 2002 Sep 6;297(5587):1708-11
references: 12215649
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Jul;8(7):307-14
references: 15242690
references: PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25405
references: 22022390
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014 Feb;143(1):255-65
references: 23163765
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010 Jun;134(2):154-61
references: 20185118
references: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Mar;1156:232-59
references: 19338511
references: J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2013 Jan;199(1):1-16
references: 23052854
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jul 10;109(28):11116-20
references: 22733748
references: Child Dev. 2011 Jul-Aug;82(4):1224-37
references: 21679173
references: J Exp Child Psychol. 2009 Aug;103(4):490-502
references: 19327782
references: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Nov;64(11):2099-109
references: 21846265
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 Nov;141(3):373-9
references: 23098904
references: Behav Brain Funct. 2006 May 30;2:20
references: 16734906
references: Cognition. 1992 Aug;44(1-2):1-42
references: 1511583
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Apr;7(4):145-147
references: 12691758
references: Dev Psychol. 2008 Sep;44(5):1457-65
references: 18793076
references: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010 Oct;72(7):1839-53
references: 20952782
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 May;140(1):50-7
references: 22445770
references: Cognition. 2006 Jan;98(3):199-222
references: 15876429
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012 Nov;141(4):642-8
references: 22082115
references: Psychol Sci. 2001 May;12(3):238-43
references: 11437307
references: PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e33832
references: 22558077
references: Br J Educ Psychol. 2012 Mar;82(Pt 1):64-81
references: 21199482
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Dec;18(6):1222-9
references: 21898191
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Apr;15(2):419-25
references: 18488662
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Nov 13;109(46):18737-42
references: 23091023
references: Cognition. 2010 Jul;116(1):33-41
references: 20381023
references: Cognition. 2011 Nov;121(2):256-61
references: 21855058
references: Vision Res. 1994 Apr;34(7):885-912
references: 8160402
references: Neuron. 2004 Oct 28;44(3):547-55
references: 15504333
references: Psychol Rev. 1990 Jul;97(3):404-31
references: 2381998
references: Neuroimage. 2004 Aug;22(4):1466-79
references: 15275904
references: Nature. 1967 Sep 30;215(5109):1519-20
references: 6052760
references: Nature. 2008 Oct 2;455(7213):665-8
references: 18776888
references: PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e23749
references: 21935362
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Dec;8(4):698-707
references: 11848588
references: Brain Res. 2006 Aug 23;1106(1):177-188
references: 16828717
references: Science. 2004 Oct 15;306(5695):499-503
references: 15486303
references: Annu Rev Neurosci. 2009;32:185-208
references: 19400715
references: Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Jun 12;7:270
references: 23781191
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Apr;19(2):285-93
references: 22231727
references: Dev Sci. 2011 Nov;14(6):1292-300
references: 22010889
references: Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Apr 19;6:68
references: 22529786
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Mar 21;103(12):4693-8
references: 16537401
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jul 17;109(29):11860-5
references: 22761312
references: Neuroscientist. 2009 Jun;15(3):261-73
references: 19436075
references: J Exp Child Psychol. 2009 May;103(1):17-29
references: 18513738