↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Finger Counting on Numerical Development – The Opposing Views of Neurocognition and Mathematics Education

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of Finger Counting on Numerical Development – The Opposing Views of Neurocognition and Mathematics Education
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00328
Pubmed ID
Authors

Korbinian Moeller, Laura Martignon, Silvia Wessolowski, Joachim Engel, Hans-Christoph Nuerk

Abstract

Children typically learn basic numerical and arithmetic principles using finger-based representations. However, whether or not reliance on finger-based representations is beneficial or detrimental is the subject of an ongoing debate between researchers in neurocognition and mathematics education. From the neurocognitive perspective, finger counting provides multisensory input, which conveys both cardinal and ordinal aspects of numbers. Recent data indicate that children with good finger-based numerical representations show better arithmetic skills and that training finger gnosis, or "finger sense," enhances mathematical skills. Therefore neurocognitive researchers conclude that elaborate finger-based numerical representations are beneficial for later numerical development. However, research in mathematics education recommends fostering mentally based numerical representations so as to induce children to abandon finger counting. More precisely, mathematics education recommends first using finger counting, then concrete structured representations and, finally, mental representations of numbers to perform numerical operations. Taken together, these results reveal an important debate between neurocognitive and mathematics education research concerning the benefits and detriments of finger-based strategies for numerical development. In the present review, the rationale of both lines of evidence will be discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 150 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 18%
Student > Master 27 17%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Professor 10 6%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 32 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 58 36%
Social Sciences 26 16%
Neuroscience 6 4%
Mathematics 5 3%
Computer Science 5 3%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 45 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2023.
All research outputs
#4,351,197
of 26,367,306 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,618
of 35,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,939
of 195,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#86
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,367,306 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 195,785 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 242 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.