Submit a report

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

429

The origin of symbolic numerical knowledge in early development – an fNIRS Registered Reportuse asterix (*) to get italics
Elizaveta Ivanova, Marc Joanisse, Daniel Ansari, Mojtaba SoltanlouPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
2023
<p>The ability to understand that each number word in the count sequence refers to a specific set of items (e.g., ‘two’ means ‘two things’) is a milestone in cognitive development. When children reach this milestone, they are said to understand the cardinality principle: the last word in the count sequence refers to the total number of items in the set. Acquisition of the cardinality principle is the most crucial step in the development of symbolic numerical knowledge. While research in cognitive development has revealed much about how and when children learn the cardinality principle, we know very little about the neural changes that are associated with this major conceptual development. This understanding will provide evidence for developing theories about the origin of human symbolic knowledge and individual differences in early development, which might help to identify early risk factors for later math learning difficulties. In this study, we will investigate the bilateral parietal responses using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) during numerical adaptation task in &nbsp;2 years 9 months and 4 years 3 months old children. While one group has already acquired cardinality principle knowledge (understanding that each number word associates with a corresponding magnitude), the other group has not yet acquired it. We will apply univariate analysis along with functional connectivity to compare brain responses in the two groups. We hypothesize different brain activation patterns and connectivity between the two groups: children who demonstrate knowledge of the cardinality principle will reveal higher left parietal activation related to the semantic processing of number words and higher bilateral parietal connectivity related to a link between number words to their discrete as compared to children who have not acquired this knowledge yet.</p>
You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
preschool children, numerical cognition, symbolic numerical knowledge, cardinality principle knowledge, functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), functional connectivity, multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA)
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Social sciences
Ed Hubbard suggested: Do you need additional reviewers? Since this is a revision, I assumed that this would only go back to the original reviewers. I am happy to suggest additional reviewers if needed. , Ed Hubbard suggested: Two people who come to mind who are knowledgeable about fNIRS are Alyssa Kersey (ajkersey@uchicago.edu), although she has since left science, and Rachel Romeo https://hesp.umd.edu/facultyprofile/romeo/rachel romeo@umd.edu
e.g. John Doe john@doe.com
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe john@doe.com
2023-03-14 17:25:27
Robert McIntosh