Dimensional versus categorical approach: A comparative study of mathematical cognition

IF 3.4 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES Trends in Neuroscience and Education Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1016/j.tine.2024.100245

{"title":"Dimensional versus categorical approach: A comparative study of mathematical cognition","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.tine.2024.100245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Researchers have employed two distinct methods to understand the cognitive underpinnings of mathematical ability: categorical and dimensional. These two methods have different underlying assumptions. However, to the best of our knowledge, research to date has not empirically tested which method can better predict variance in mathematical ability.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>104 children from Indian public schools in the 3rd and 4th grades completed a mathematical ability test. For the categorical approach, participants were categorized into two groups: mathematical learning difficulty and high math achieving. For the dimensional approach, the data of all participants were considered. The cognitive abilities measured included approximate number system, working memory, inhibitory control, and spatial ability.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Mixed factorial ANOVA and hierarchical regressions revealed that the dimensional approach demonstrated better predictive power for mathematical ability than the categorical approach.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The dimensional approach offers a more comprehensive insight into mathematical cognition, enabling greater control over the predictors.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46228,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Neuroscience and Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Neuroscience and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949324000267","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Researchers have employed two distinct methods to understand the cognitive underpinnings of mathematical ability: categorical and dimensional. These two methods have different underlying assumptions. However, to the best of our knowledge, research to date has not empirically tested which method can better predict variance in mathematical ability.

Method

104 children from Indian public schools in the 3rd and 4th grades completed a mathematical ability test. For the categorical approach, participants were categorized into two groups: mathematical learning difficulty and high math achieving. For the dimensional approach, the data of all participants were considered. The cognitive abilities measured included approximate number system, working memory, inhibitory control, and spatial ability.

Results

Mixed factorial ANOVA and hierarchical regressions revealed that the dimensional approach demonstrated better predictive power for mathematical ability than the categorical approach.

Conclusions

The dimensional approach offers a more comprehensive insight into mathematical cognition, enabling greater control over the predictors.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

维度方法与分类方法：数学认知比较研究

背景研究人员采用了两种不同的方法来了解数学能力的认知基础：分类法和维度法。这两种方法有不同的基本假设。然而，据我们所知，迄今为止的研究还没有对哪种方法能更好地预测数学能力的差异进行过实证测试。方法来自印度公立学校的 104 名三、四年级学生完成了数学能力测试。在分类法中，被试被分为两组：数学学习困难组和数学成绩优秀组。在维度方法中，所有参与者的数据都被考虑在内。测量的认知能力包括近似数系统、工作记忆、抑制控制和空间能力。结果混合因子方差分析和分层回归显示，维度方法对数学能力的预测能力优于分类方法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊