Dyscalculia – An Overview of Research on Learning
Disability
Teresa Guillemot
Teacher Education Programme, Mathematics and Computing
toc99001@student.mdh.se
ABSTRACT  early as in 1924 The German researcher Gerstmann examined
Dyscalculia is a mathematical learning disorder where the
mathematical ability is far below expected for a person’s age,
intelligence and education. Researchers have found evidence
that such a disability exists and due to their findings there is a
need to address dyscalculia as an important educational issue in
mathematics. Students with these mathematical learning
disabilities in the Swedish school system today have the
opportunity to be diagnosed through special tests. If these
students are diagnosed with dyscalculia then they can receive
special education corresponding to their needs. The concept of
dyscalculia is being discussed, researched, tested and
scrutinized in several institutions around the world. Test results
indicate that somewhere between 3-6 % of the population
suffers from severe mathematical learning disorders, even to the
extent that it impairs the daily life. Recently there have been
discoveries made suggesting that different mathematical
operations and number handling are connected to specific areas
in the brain. If these neuropsychological findings can be
scientifically justified, researchers are one step closer to solve
the puzzle of dyscalculia, also known as number blindness. The
aim of this article is to discuss the different views of
dyscalculia, both supporting and critical towards treating
dyscalculia as an important educational issue, and illuminate the
possible advantages of diagnosing mathematical learning
disabilities.
Keywords
Dyscalculia, Learning disabilities, Mathematics education
INTRODUCTION
In cognitive science and the pedagogical and
neuropsychological fields, different views exist of mathematical
learning disorders. Dyscalculia has been defined as a specific
mathematical learning disorder (MLD), where the mathematical
ability is far below expected for a person’s age, intelligence,
and education. Researchers and scientists in the field have
different opinions on whether dyscalculia as a diagnosis is
possible to establish scientifically or not, or where it originates
from in case it exists.
This survey is focused on recent work from both
perspectives, looking into possible explanations of the
phenomenon. Teachers, parents and students are often aware of
the fact that there are a number of persons with special
difficulties in learning mathematics. Pupils with learning
disorders may feel uncomfortable in learning situations, unless
they are being treated in a way that facilitates their learning. In
order to give the proper education to a pupil with a learning
disorder, it is essential to understand the most suitable ways in
which students with learning disabilities can acquire
mathematical understanding, which is closely associated with
abstract thinking. Findings pointing towards an area in the brain
connected to abstract thinking were published by the French
neurologist Broca already in 1861 (Butterworth1, 1999). As
1
patients that had lost their ability to perform mathematical
operations due to damage to the left side of the brain. This
disability was later called Gerstmann’s syndrome (Butterworth,
1999). This article begins with the definitions of the topics
discussed, followed by a survey of recent work of authors in the
field of research. The research suggesting neurophysiologic
basis for dyscalculia is important because of frequent opinion
that learning difficulties are solely the result of lack of student’s
diligence and attentiveness. Also, even if a neurophysiological
picture of the disorder can provide an explanation, the fact that
the brain exhibits remarkable plasticity remains, which leaves
us with the question: is it possible by exercise to remedy the
neuropsychological state linked to dyscalculia? A discussion of
the surveyed work follows in the end of the article. References
in the text are given as endnotes.
Definitions
Dyscalculia is a broad term that includes many different
kinds of difficulties in learning mathematics. Dyscalculia is also
used for naming general difficulties in learning basic
mathematics. Some of the different definitions include:
• Developmental dyscalculia: according to a number of
researchers (Kosc, 1974, Shalev & Gross-Tsur, 1993, 2001,
Wilson & Dehaene2, 2007) this type of dyscalculia
originates from a specific impairment in the brain function.
However, this definition has not always been fully
acknowledged by the research community. The
neuroscience research field has though progressed, where
studies are conducted concerning the brain (Wilson &
Dehaene, 2007).
• Acalculia: where a person has lost all sense of meaning of
numbers or where the person still understands numbers but
is unable to perform basic calculations like addition and
multiplication, due to a neurological damage.
• Pseudo-dyscalculia: finding math difficult, based on
emotional blockage or a confidence problem.
There are also several different theories of causes of
dyscalculia:
• The Core deficit hypothesis: analogies are made between
dyslexia3 and dyscalculia. Even though “the knowledge of
its behavioural manifestations is incomplete” (Wilson &
Dehaene, 2007), neuroimaging results point to a specific
region in the brain when it comes to numerical handling.
Some types of dyscalculia are caused by an impairment of
function in different regions in the brain (Butterworth,
1999; Gersten & Chard, 1999; Robinson, Menchetti &
Torgesen, 2002).
• Working memory hypothesis; Wilson and Dehaene (2007)
suggest a controversial explanation of dyscalculia, namely a
 deficit in the components of the working memory, which is
supported by Adler (2001).
Research results on Dyscalculia
Von Aster (2000) wrote about the state of dyscalculia,
describing a study made at the Department of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry in Zürich, defining three subtypes of
dyscalculia; The Verbal subtype was found in children with the
largest difficulty when counting, especially when counting
mentally, not using pen and paper. Subtraction was the most
problematic operation but also remembering methods of
counting. Children with the Verbal subtypes also had other
learning disabilities. In nine of eleven children in the study, Von
Aster found similar dyslexic conditions, and six of the children
also had Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
The Arabic subtype of dyscalculia included children with
problems reading Arabic numbers out loud and writing them
after hearing the numbers, but these children had no further
learning disabilities. The third group of dyscalculia, called the
Pervasive subtype, included disabilities with most mathematical
thinking, writing, spelling and the children also possessed
emotional and behavioural problems.
The latest study found refuting the existence of dyscalculia
as a phenomenon was made by Sjöberg in 2006. His opinion
was that the results from previous studies were inconclusive
when pointing towards dyscalculia as an indication of
difficulties in mathematics. The idea that the pupils had not put
enough effort and time into their work with math was a more
likely scenario. Sjöberg claimed that the research results
showing that 6 % of compulsory school pupils suffered from
dyscalculia were incorrectly interpreted. Sjöberg presented his
conclusions in a thesis where he studied 200 pupils from grade
five in the Swedish compulsory school to the second year of
education in the upper secondary school during a six year
period. Of these students, 13 were having specific mathematical
problems. Material was gathered regularly in which pupils filled
in questionnaires. A total of 100 classroom observations were
made and 40 of them were video recorded. On two occasions
Sjöberg conducted in-depth interviews with the 13 pupils who
had specific mathematical problems. Sjöberg noticed other
components that were possibly affecting the pupil’s low
understanding of math like a low work rate during the lessons,
disturbance in the classroom environment, large groups and also
emotional stress in test situations. Some students claim to get
blackouts during tests due to experiencing a high stress level.
The results of the study did not refute the existence of
dyscalculia as a phenomenon, but the findings made Sjöberg
draw the conclusion that diagnosing dyscalculia should be
exercised cautiously, if at all. All the students in his study
finished math studies in upper secondary school with satisfying
results. This led Sjöberg to the conclusion that in order to make
a diagnose properly the whole environment has to be examined,
not only the pupil with the assumed mathematical learning
disorder.
Unlike Sjöberg; Shalev, Gross-Tsur et al. (2000) suggested
a prevalence of 3–6 % school children with dyscalculia. The
range was interpreted as a consequence of different definitions
of developmental dyscalculia. “To determine prevalence we
must develop a scientific and clinical consensus as to what
constitutes a learning disability and which definition best
describes the problem.” (Shalev, Gross-Tsur et al., 2000). The
definitions of dyscalculia were not precise and Shalev, Gross-
Tsur et al. referred to different options like; “a specific,
genetically determined learning disability in a child with
average intelligence” and “a learning disability in mathematics,
the diagnosis of which is established when arithmetic
2
performance is substantially below that expected for age,
intelligence and education”.
The first study of dyscalculic prevalence was made by Kosc
in Bratislava in 1974. Different mathematical assignments of
basic character were used. Kosc regarded the children with
results below the 10th percentile as dyscalculic, which was
6.4 % of the 375 fifth-graders participating in the study. Several
other studies have been made in other countries showing similar
figures; In Germany by Badian (1983), Klauer (1992), in
Switzerland by Von Aster (1997), in England by Lewis, Hitch
and Walker (1994). The margin of errors in these studies were
affected by reading difficulties, dyslexia, ADHD and other
disabilities, since the children with these difficulties had a
tendency to show poorer arithmetical skills than those only
having dyscalculia. Shalev and Gross-Tsur (2000)
acknowledged that other authors emphasized other reasons than
brain dysfunctions for dyscalculia; lower social and economic
status, mathematical anxiety, large classes and less well
thought-through curricula and teaching.
Kadosh4 (2007) discovered through tests that a specific part
of the brain was associated with automatic magnitude
processing5. Kadosh was using functional Magnetic Resonance
Imaging (fMRI) in order to show that the intraparietal sulcus
(IPS), illustrated in figure A, had a role in the ability to
recognize numbers. In order to cope with ambiguous results
regarding left and right side of the brain, a transcranial magnetic
stimulation (TMS) was used to block the energy activation of
the brain on one side at a time. When blocking the right side of
the brain, the test persons appeared to obtain dyscalculic
behaviour, as opposed to the persons that were being tested
without the blocking, where there was no appearance of
dyscalculic behaviour. The experimenters also took into
consideration that other areas of the brain that were
communicating at the same time could be affected by the TMS.
But according to careful studies of the fMRI no other areas
showed any activity during the automatic magnitude processing.
However, the researchers did not claim to have found the cause
of dyscalculia after this test, since it was not made clear whether
developmental dyscalculia and the effects produced through
TMS could be classified as identical deficits. The experimental
procedures were carefully described in the report. It is important
to notice that only five subjects were tested. This study
confirmed the results of earlier studies, one of them made by
Butterworth (2006), also using fMRI and identifying the IPS as
the centre responsible for the handling of number information.
Figure A: Right side of the brain and the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) [6]
Rubinstein and Henik (2009) regarded the IPS findings as
surprising. The reasons they stated were heterogeneous
behavioural deficits, comorbidity7 and number processing
represented in more than one brain area. Developmental
disorders often generate multiple problems, according to
Rubinstein and Henik. How is it possible to sort out the
dyscalculia? Rubinstein and Henik focused on three different
views; single restricted biological deficit, cognitive deficits due
to instances of biological damage and neurocognitive damage
causing developmental dyscalculia which might result in
several, not related, behavioural disorders. Rubinstein and
Henik considered brain dysfunction as a possible reason for
dyscalculia and stated that evidence has been found that IPS
was involved in attention and related cognitive processes. Injury
in the IPS area could thus result in dyscalculia. The authors
recommended future researchers to examine the whole brain,
since developmental disorders were considered heterogeneous.
Focusing on single brain-behaviour deficits exclusively could
prevent understanding of the variety of deficits connected to
developmental dyscalculia and MLD, yet standardized tests of
arithmetic computation could be a helpful screening tool to
detect and separate dyscalculia from MLD, according to
Rubinstein and Henik (2009).
Geary et al. (2009) referred to other authors (Gross-Tsur,
Manor, & Shalev, 1996; Kosc, 1974; Ostad, 1998; Shalev,
Manor, & Gross-Tsur, 2005) when discussing predictions of the
percentage of children diagnosed with a mathematical learning
disorder, which was found to be in the range from 5 to 10 %. It
was regarded critical on multiple levels that a diagnosis should
be made at an early stage. The reason to that was for measures
to be taken early in order to help the child develop their
mathematical abilities in the future. The early stages of
mathematical learning were essential for the later outcome in
the education. The authors pointed out that the causes for
mathematical learning disorders were still under investigation,
even if some conclusions had been drawn about the main areas
contributing to the disorder. Comparisons between normally
achieving children and children with a MLD have been made.
The latter group’s counting strategies were less mature, their
understanding of counting was not fully developed and they had
continuous difficulties learning math and recalling basic
arithmetic facts stored in the long-term memory. Working
memory has come to develop a central role in the area of MLD.
Children with MLD probably have a dysfunction in the basic
recognition of numbers and their magnitude (Geary et al.,
2009).
The Number Sets Tests were designed by Geary et al.
(2009) to measure the speed and correctness of the basic
number and quantity recognition in children. The further
developed test was meant to serve as a quick screening to find
sensitivity for numbers and predict MLD. Participants in the test
were 228 children from kindergarten, first, second and third
grade. In the analysis were proficiency scores, IQ in the first
year, working memory and mathematical cognition test scores
taken into consideration. The IQ scores were measured using
the test by Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI;
Wechsler, 1999). Examples of understanding numbers are given
in figure B.
Figure B: A part of the Number Sets Test (Geary et al., 2009)
Number estimation was assessed through number lines; a
blank line with two endpoints; 0 and 100. The assignment was
to mark on the line where the number presented should be
placed. The score was defined as the absolute difference
between the marking of the number and the correct position of
the number. The overall score was calculated as the mean of
3
these differences across the trials. Measuring the children’s
counting ability was made by letting the child look at a puppet
counting red and blue chips. The child had to tell if the puppet
had made a correct calculation, and not double-calculated.
Geary et al. (2009) noted that children with MLD made errors
throughout the test when the first chip was counted twice like
“one – one – two – three – etc”. The score for this part of the
test was calculated as a percentage of the number of times the
child successfully identified wrong calculations.
To further asses the children’s addition strategies, a mix of
simple and complex addition problems was shown one at a
time. Each problem should be solved as quickly and correctly as
possible. The child could use any strategy to get the answer, but
without pen and paper and the answer was to be told out loud.
Geary et al. (2009) classified the trials into six different
categories; specifically, counting fingers, fingers8, verbal
counting, retrieval, decomposition9 or other/mixed strategy. The
percentage of correct direct-retrieval trials for simple problems
was correlated with the mathematics achievement scores, and
used in the analysis by Geary et al. (2009).
The Working Memory Test Battery for Children10 was
composed by nine subtests in order to assess “the central
executive11, phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad”
(Geary et al., 2009). The tests had six items from one to six to
one to nine, where four were to be remembered to get to the
next level. To get to the next level after that, the numbers
remembered increased by one. The test ended when the child
failed three times in a row. The central executive was
investigated through three different tests; Listening Recall,
Counting Recall and Backward Digit Recall. The idea of the
first test was to let the child listen to a sentence, then determine
if the sentence was true or false and then repeat the last word in
a series of sentences. The second test then demanded of the
child to count a set of dots on a card, maximum seven, and then
remember the number of counted dots at the end of a series of
cards. The third test, Backward Digit Recall is a standard format
backward digit span12 (Geary et al., 2009). The Phonological
loop was examined with Digit Recall, Word List Recall, and
Nonword List Recall, for instance by repeating words spoken
by the experimenter in the same order. Series of words were
presented to the child in the Word List Matching task. Then the
words were presented again, maybe in another order, and the
child had to decide whether the second list had the same order
as the first list. The Visuospatial sketchpad was tried with other
span tasks13, like Block Recall. A board was set up with nine
one-sided numbered blocks in a “random” arrangement; the
numbers could only be seen by the experimenter. Then the
experimenter touched series of blocks and the child should
repeat the order. Mazes Memory task was conducted like this;
the child got a picture of a maze with more than one solution. A
picture of an identical maze with one solution drawn was
presented. The child’s task was to replicate the solution when
the picture was removed. After a successful trial, the maze was
increased with one wall. The tests were conducted every term
for each age group, except for the children in kindergarten who
were tested one time in spring. The location of the tests was at
the children’s schools, most of the time in a quiet place. Some
of the children’s tests were executed on the university campus
or in a mobile testing van. A score below the 15th percentile on
the mathematics achievement test characterized the child as
having a MLD. Results between the 15th and 30th percentiles
were being considered as “low achieving” (Geary et al., 2009).
Pupils with results above the 30th percentile were considered
normally achieving. No comments were made on high
achieving children in the test.
To find the most accurate measure to predict third grade
mathematics achievement, all measures were compared in
independent regressions. The central executive and sensitivity
measures predicted 25 % in the variation; the number line
scores predicted 27 %. The number line measure appeared to
somewhat assess the children’s intuitive understanding of
numerical quantity. The researchers claimed that their results
provided initial support for their hypothesis. Competencies
assessed by the sensitivity score were unrelated to reading
achievement and achievement in general or to IQ or working
memory (Geary et al., 2009). Of the non-MLD children in third
grade 96 % were correctly identified in first grade. According to
Geary et al. (2009) the Number Sets Test was a potential
screening tool for discovering children prone to MLD at an
early stage. The results from the test in first grade could be used
to detect 67 % of children risking MLD at the end of third grade
and correctly identify nearly 90 % of non-MLD children.
Benefits of early identification of children at risk for MLD
would be early remedial services and low costs. The authors
emphasized that the Number Sets Test was not yet ready for use
as a diagnostic tool since the test was not normed and it could
not be used for making predictions later than the third grade. To
enable further tests, the authors were willing to provide the test
on request.
Discussion
Dyscalculia is a topic widely discussed in pedagogical and
neuropsychological forums. Dyslexia has previously been
established as a proper diagnose of the learning disorder
concerning reading, spelling and writing but after years of
controversies between the researchers in the fields of
neuroscience and cognitive theory. Dyscalculia on the other
hand has not yet reached the same status as dyslexia. In
Sweden, Adler has been providing tests to diagnose dyscalculia
for at least a couple of years. Sjöberg (2006) means that
dyscalculia has not yet been defined and that there are other
reasons for pupil’s mathematical problems. Parameters pointed
out are large groups, disturbing environments, bad teaching and
mathematical anxiety (Sjöberg, 2006). The recommendations
are to examine the whole environment and not only the student
with the mathematical learning disorder. Sjöberg’s test subjects
later succeeded in finishing mathematics courses in upper
secondary school, even with early indications of dyscalculia.
Sjöberg's opinion is supported by Shalev and Gross-Tsur (2000)
who propose lower social and economical status, mathematical
anxiety, large classes and less well thought-through curricula
and bad teaching as affecting parameters to difficulty in
mathematical learning situations.
Rubinstein and Henik (2009) are not satisfied with defining
dyscalculia as being a separate disorder, and rather mean that
dyscalculia is depending on a range of various disorders. Von
Aster (2000) even defines three different subtypes of
dyscalculia; Verbal, Arabic and Pervasive subtypes, which
indicate that the disability is more complex than just a
calculating issue. Language understanding and disorders like
ADHD are factors contributing to difficulties in the learning
process. Shalev, Gross-Tsur et al. (2000) disagree to that
dyscalculia is perfectly defined due to the margin of errors in
other researchers interpretations of test results.
Kosc (1974) was one of the first researchers to make a large
scale test on mathematical disorders. He came up with the result
that 3-6 % of the tested children suffered from a mathematical
learning disorder. Later performed studies by other researchers
(Von Aster, 2000; Gross-Tsur V, Manor O, Shalev RS, 1996;
Klauer KJ, 1992) show around the same percentage.
Going deeper into the cognitive perception of mathematics,
Geary et al. (2009) have developed tests to examine the
working memory and its impact on the mathematical ability to
discover and predict learning disabilities in young school
4
children, up to second grade. This would lead to early remedial
services to a low cost according to Geary et al. More recent
research has although been made in this area, indicating that
mathematical abilities can be connected to both sides of the
brain, in the IPS. Kadosh et al. (2007) have performed clinical
studies on the brain using fMRI, with results confirming the IPS
on the right side of the brain as a centre for number cognition. It
is however not proven whether this mathematical ability is in
need of other parts of the brain to fully function, even though
the results are interesting and in need of further testing. Due to
the small amount of gathered data, the statistics of the results
are not reliable. Kadosh’s study is confirming the findings made
by Butterworth (2006), who also identified the IPS as the centre
responsible for the handling of number information.
Despite the research work, the fact remains that there still
are pupils in school with difficulties when it comes to learning
mathematics. These pupils are normally functioning, social,
intelligent adolescents with seemingly no disorders. But when it
comes to mathematics they no longer feel like intelligent well
functioning persons that they really are and for some of them
their whole world falls apart. In lectures I have learned that
persons with dyslexia have felt excluded from learning reading,
writing and spelling until they received a diagnosis of their
disability which opened up a whole new world of understanding
to them and also of them. A diagnosis may have the effect to
make a person feel understood, and give an explanation to why
it is hard to learn a specific matter. A diagnosis also prevents a
person from being discarded as “dumb”. The main reason to
why research on dyscalculia is conducted is hopefully to give a
remedy to the persons with mathematical learning disabilities.
A diagnosis of dyscalculia could help the affected children to
find a way to not feel excluded from the possibility to
understand a core subject like mathematics. To discover
dyscalculia at an early stage may prevent these children from
developing a negative self-image, leading to decreasing interest
in mathematics, which in turn can affect the interest in other
school subjects in a negative way. If the parents are involved
and aware of the children’s difficulties, then the extra support
from home can help the children in their learning process. A
diagnosis could give meaning to the children and their parents
and give resources to teachers to better help students with
disabilities. Waiting for the problems to solve themselves will
probably have the effect of making the children dislike math
even more in the future, since it is hard to understand why there
is a problem learning math on your own. According to Adler
(2001), the best way to teach math to children with dyscalculia
is in individual sessions. Further, if trying to teach a child with
dyscalculia math of the wrong kind, the situation for the child
can even worsen. Today the classroom situation does not make
it easy for children with dyscalculia. The classes have many
pupils and there is not much time left for individual teaching. In
many Swedish upper secondary schools a pupil must have a
proper diagnosis to receive special education. Sometimes the
school’s economical situation still cannot allow extra individual
teaching. We teachers see more and more students who are
having severe problems learning mathematics. The scores on
mathematical tests are getting lower each year, although the
same tests are done every year in the first grade. That the
student’s mathematical abilities decrease with the years is an
alarming trend that demands immediate attention from the
authorities.
There is a need to agree on criteria that will help
recognizing and analysing dyscalculia. “Finally, only with
better understanding of the nature of developmental dyscalculia
can we devise effective ways of helping the millions of our
fellow citizens whose lives are blighted by it” (Butterworth,
2006). Personally I look forward to the day when I as a teacher
in mathematics have better tools to help all of my students,
including the ones with learning disabilities, succeed in
mathematics.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my course leaders Jan Gustafsson and
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic for their support and enthusiasm,
answering questions and helping their students managing the
deadlines. Thank you!
References  Developmental dyscalculia: prevalence and prognosis.
Adler B. What is dyscalculia? NU-förlag, 2001 (See also
http://www.dyscalculiainfo.org)
Baddeley A. Working memory. Académie des sciences,
Elsevier, Paris. 1998.
Butterworth B. The Mathematical Brain: Macmillan, London,
1999.
Castelli F., Glaser D. and Butterworth B. Discrete and analogue
quantity processing in the parietal lobe: A functional MRI
study. 2006 (http://www.pnas.org/content/103/12/4693.full)
Cohen Kadosh R., Cohen Kadosh K., Schuhmann T., Kaas A.,
Goebel R., Henik A. and Sack AT. Virtual Dyscalculia Induced
by Parietal-Lobe TMS Impairs Automatic Magnitude
Processing. 2007
Kosc L. Developmental Dyscalculia. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, Vol. 7. 1974. DOI: 10.1177/002221947400700309
Osaka N., Logie R. and D’Esposito M. The cognitive
neuroscience of working memory. Oxford University Press.
New York, 2007
Rubinstein O. and Henik A. Developmental Dyscalculia:
heterogeneity might not mean different mechanisms. 2009.
Shalev R. S., Auerbach J., Manor O., Gross-Tsur V.
Steinkopff Verlag, 2000.
Sjöberg G. If it isn’t dyscalculia – then what is it? A multi-
method study of the pupil with mathematics problems from a
longitudinal perspective. 2006, ISBN 91-7264-047-2.
(http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-777)
Von Aster M. Developmental cognitive neuropsychology of
number processing and calculation: varieties of developmental
dyscalculia. 9: II/41–II/57 © Steinkopff Verlag, 2000.
Wilson A., Dehaene S. Number sense and developmental
dyscalculia. In Human behaviour, learning and the developing
brain: Atypical development, pages: 212–238, 2007

Geary D., Bailey D. and Hoard M. Predicting Mathematical

Achievement and Mathematical Learning
Disability With a Simple Screening Tool - The Number Sets
Test. University of Missouri. Printed in Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, Volume 27, Number 3, 2009.

5
Endnotes 
1
Brian Butterworth, professor of Cognitive Neuropsychology at University College, London
2
Stanislas Dehaene, Professor at Collège de France, has a Masters degree in applied mathematics and Computer science,
PhD in Experimental Psychology, chair of Experimental Cognitive Psychology.
3
Dyslexia: learning disability involving difficulties in processing language in reading, spelling, and writing
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dyslexia)
4
Roi Cohen Kadosh, from the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, researcher in numerical
cognition, parietal lobe functions and neurocognitive mechanisms amongst other areas.
5
Automatic magnitude processing: determining the magnitude of a number when compared to another number that also
differs in appearance and physical size.
6
Figure taken from http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/vis_perf.gif
7
The presence of one or more disorders.
8
“Fingers” means showing fingers.
9
“7 + 8 by decomposing 8 into 5 and 3 and then adding 7 + 3 = 10, 10 + 5 = 15”, (Geary et al., 2009)
10
WMTB-C; Pickering & Gathercole, 2001, (Geary et al., 2009)
11
The central executive; a neuropsychological explaining model of a central attentional control system in the brain
(Baddeley, 1998)
12
Recalling numbers in reversed order (Wikipedia)
13
Span tasks are about repeating information directly after being presented to it. The span is about how long the list of
remembered and repeated items is (Osaka, Logie & D’Esposito, 2007, Wikipedia).