China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Common and Assistive Technology to Support People with Specific Learning Disabilities to Access Healthcare
Published in Christopher M. Hayre, Dave J. Muller, Marcia J. Scherer, Everyday Technologies in Healthcare, 2019
Dianne Chambers, Sharon Campbell
While there has been less research in the area of maths learning disability, or dyscalculia, the impacts on the individual are known to be just as significant as those known to effect people with dyslexia (Butterworth et al., 2011) and significantly impact upon the life outcomes for those who have dyscalculia. Some of the areas of difficulty identified in the literature include difficulty with simple number concepts, difficulty with arithmetic (counting or subitising), poor short- and long-term memory for mathematical facts, problems with learning number facts and procedures, poor time management and difficulty budgeting (Emerson, 2014; Iuculano, Tang, Hall, & Butterworth, 2008; Judd, 2012). Mathematical disabilities may impact on determining correct dosages for medication, result in time and spatial difficulties when attending appointments, and cause issues when filling out health forms and providing information for healthcare professionals.
A review of laboratory studies on the acute effects of movement and exercise on cognition in children
Published in Romain Meeusen, Sabine Schaefer, Phillip Tomporowski, Richard Bailey, Physical Activity and Educational Achievement, 2017
The finger representation training used a color scheme, such that children learned an association between each finger and a specific colour (i.e. thumb–white, index–green, middle–blue . . .). They were then trained on a labyrinth task, a pointing task, a piano task, and a grip task, all of which relied on the colour-coded fingers. Both training regimes lasted for 8 weeks, with two sessions a week. Before any intervention, children with good finger gnosis outperformed the two groups with poor finger gnosis in two numerical tasks, one tapping the level of elaboration of the verbal numerical chain and the other involving counting collections. After the intervention, children in the finger representation training group outperformed those of the control training group in finger gnosis, and even those of the high-performing group who had not received any training. They had improved their scores on a ‘draw a hand’ test, could react faster in a task that required them to say how many fingers were raised in pictures, and reacted faster in a subitizing task compared to the story comprehension training group. The authors argue that improving finger gnosis in young children is possible and that it can provide a useful support to learning mathematics.
Factor structure of early numeracy: evaluation of a measurement model in greek-speaking children with intellectual disabilities
Published in International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 2023
Garyfalia Charitaki, Spyridon–Georgios Soulis, Anastasia Alevriadou
Moreover, there is evidence that in a later developmental stage, in which the child won’t use naïve strategies for problem solving, the EN would be better described by a three-factor model. In such a case, it is possible that RS and CS would affect the development of O (Aunio and Niemivirta 2010) in a sequential way, since they are causally related. As an example, in the beginning CS are acquired as a procedure. As RS are developing, they promote the conceptual learning of CS and have an effect on subitizing. Subitizing is a significant skill which supports the development of advanced problem solving strategies. Another, important argument is related to the fact that trajectories may reflect not only the development but also the exposure to teaching (Darling-Hammond et al2020). Consequently, the interventions targeting a specific skill of the EN domain could reveal if there is an impact in another skill. Such information is important to construct curricula and evidence-based interventions in the area of IDs.
Developmental Dyscalculia is Characterized by Order Processing Deficits: Evidence from Numerical and Non-Numerical Ordering Tasks
Published in Developmental Neuropsychology, 2018
Kinga Morsanyi, Bianca M.C.W. van Bers, Patrick A. O’Connor, Teresa McCormack
Although there is evidence to suggest that children with DD show impairments on both the number comparison task and the dot comparison task, some researchers have argued that non-symbolic magnitude processing might be intact in DD, whereas the processing of symbolic magnitudes is impaired (De Smedt & Gilmore, 2011; Iuculano et al., 2008; Rousselle & Noël, 2007). Indeed, both the behavioral and neuroscientific evidence regarding differences on the dot comparison task between DD and non-DD participants is inconsistent (see Szucs, Devine et al., 2013 for a review and discussion), meaning further investigation is valuable. There are various versions of the dot comparison task, which differ both in the number of stimuli presented (i.e., whether they also include numbers in the subitizing range), and the perceptual properties of the displays. Previous studies that reported differences in dot comparison performance between DD and control participants (e.g., Mazzocco, Feigenson, & Halberda, 2011; Mussolin, Mejias, & Noël, 2010; Piazza et al., 2010; Price, Holloway, Räsänen, Vesterinen, & Ansari, 2007; Skagerlund & Träff, 2016) also used various designs. We decided to model our task on Price et al. (2007), because their study showed both behavioral and fMRI evidence for group differences in the version of the dot comparison task that they used. The number of items in their task ranged between 1 and 9 (i.e., they also included numbers in the subitizing range).
Number Magnitude Processing and Verbal Working Memory in Children with Mild Intellectual Disabilities
Published in Developmental Neuropsychology, 2020
Ulf Träff, Anna Levén, Rickard Östergren, Daniel Schöld
Important and novel findings were observed on the subitizing and counting task as the MID group’s performance on the subitizing (1–4 dots) and counting (5–8 dots) measurements, were faster than the MA comparison group, but slower than the T11–12 comparison group. Compared to the T9–10 comparison group, the MID group was equally fast on the subitizing measurement but slower on the counting measurement. These results extend prior research by showing that children with a mild intellectual disability also experience difficulties with these aspects of number processing not only with number magnitude comparison.