Cognitive Foundations of Early Mathematics: Investigating the Unique Contributions of Numerical, Executive Function, and Spatial Skills
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an emerging consensus that numerical, executive function (EF), and spatial skills are foundational to children’s mathematical learning and development. Moreover, each skill has been theorized to relate to mathematics for different reasons. Thus, it is possible that each cognitive construct is related to mathematics through distinct pathways. The present study tests this hypothesis. One-hundred and eighty 4- to 9-year-olds (Mage = 6.21) completed a battery of numerical, EF, spatial, and mathematics measures. Factor analyses revealed strong, but separable, relations between children’s numerical, EF, and spatial skills. Moreover, the three-factor model (i.e., modelling numerical, EF, and spatial skills as separate latent variables) fit the data better than a general intelligence (g-factor) model. While EF skills were the only unique predictor of number line performance, spatial skills were the only unique predictor of arithmetic (addition) performance. Additionally, spatial skills were related to the use of more advanced addition strategies (e.g., composition/decomposition and retrieval), which in turn were related to children’s overall arithmetic performance. That is, children’s strategy use fully mediated the relation between spatial skills and arithmetic performance. Taken together, these findings provide new insights into the cognitive foundations of early mathematics, with implications for assessment and instruction moving forward.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it