Number comparison and number ordering as predictors of arithmetic performance in adults: Exploring the link between the two skills, and investigating the question of domain-specificity.

Recent evidence has highlighted the important role that number ordering skills play in arithmetic abilities (e.g., Lyons & Beilock, 2011). In fact, Lyons et al. (2014) demonstrated that although at the start of formal mathematics education number comparison skills are the best predictors of arithmetic performance, from around the age of 10, number ordering skills become the strongest numerical predictors of arithmetic abilities. In the current study we demonstrated that number comparison and ordering skills were both significantly related to arithmetic performance in adults, and the effect size was greater in the case of ordering skills. Additionally, we found that the effect of number comparison skills on arithmetic performance was partially mediated by number ordering skills. Moreover, performance on comparison and ordering tasks involving the months of the year was also strongly correlated with arithmetic skills, and participants displayed similar (canonical or reverse) distance effects on the comparison and ordering tasks involving months as when the tasks included numbers. This suggests that the processes responsible for the link between comparison and ordering skills and arithmetic performance are not specific to the domain of numbers. Finally, a factor analysis indicated that performance on comparison and ordering tasks loaded on a factor which included performance on a number line task and self-reported spatial thinking styles. These results substantially extend previous research on the role of order processing abilities in mental arithmetic.

Episodic Future Thinking in 4-Year-Olds, Poster Symposium: The who, what, where and when of episodic foresight development

The ability to project oneself into the future to pre-experience an event is referred to as episodic future thinking (Atance & O’Neill, 2001). Only a relatively small number of studies have attempted to measure this ability in pre-school aged children (Atance & Meltzoff, 2005; Busby & Suddendorf, 2005ab, 2010; Russell, Alexis, & Clayton, 2010).Perhaps the most successful method is that used by Russell et al (2010). In this task, 3- to 5-year-olds played a game of blow football on one end of a table. After this children were asked to select tools that would enable them to play the same game tomorrow from the opposite, unreachable, side of the table. Results indicated that only 5-year-olds were capable of selecting the right objects for future use more often than would be expected by chance. Above-chance performance was observed in this older group even though most children failed the task because there was a low probability of selecting the correct 2 objects from a choice of 6 by chance.This study aimed to identify the age at which children begin to consistently pass this type of task. Three different tasks were designed in which children played a game on one side of a table, and then were asked to choose a tool to play a similar game on the other side of the table the next day. For example, children used a toy fishing rod to catch magnetic fish on one side of the table; playing the same game from the other side of the table required a different type of fishing rod. At test, children chose between just 2 objects: the tool they had already used, which would not work on the other side, and a different tool that they had not used before but which was suitable for the other side of the table. Experiment 1: Forty-eight 4-year-olds (M = 53.6 months, SD = 2.9) took part. These children were assigned to one of two conditions: a control condition (present-self) where the key test questions were asked in the present tense and an experimental condition (future-self) where the questions were in the future tense. Surprisingly, the results showed that both groups of 4-year-olds selected the correct tool at above chance levels (Table 1 shows the mean number of correct answers out of three). However, the children could see the apparatus when they answered the test questions and so perhaps answered them correctly without imagining the future. Experiment 2: Twenty-four 4-year-olds (M = 53.7, SD = 3.1) participated. Pre-schoolers in this study experienced one condition: future-self looking-away. In this condition children were asked to turn their backs to the games when answering the test questions, which were in the future tense. Children again performed above chance levels on all three games.Contrary to the findings of Russell et al. (2010), our results suggest that episodic future thinking skills could be present in 4-year-olds, assuming that this is what is measured by the tasks. Table 1. Mean number of correct answers across the three games in Experiments 1 and 2Experimental Conditions (N=24 in each condition)Mean CorrectStandardDeviationStatistical SignificanceExp. 1 (present-self, look) – 2 items2.750.68p < 0.001Exp. 1 (future-self, look) – 2 items 2.790.42p < 0.001Exp. 2 (future-self, away) – 2 items 2.330.64p < 0.001Exp. 3 (future-self away) – 3 items1.210.98p = 0.157

The thinking doctor: clinical decision making in contemporary medicine

Diagnostic errors are responsible for a significant number of adverse events. Logical reasoning and good decision-making skills are key factors in reducing such errors, but little emphasis has traditionally been placed on how these thought processes occur, and how errors could be minimised. In this article, we explore key cognitive ideas that underpin clinical decision making and suggest that by employing some simple strategies, physicians might be better able to understand how they make decisions and how the process might be optimised.