Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Developmental Dyscalculia: Nosological Status and Cognitive Underpinnings

Written By

Ricardo Moura, Suzane Garcia and Júlia Beatriz Lopes-Silva

Reviewed: 26 December 2019 Published: 19 February 2020

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.91003

From the Edited Volume

Learning Disabilities - Neurological Bases, Clinical Features and Strategies of Intervention

Edited by Sandro Misciagna

Chapter metrics overview

900 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Mathematics is one of the main challenges faced by students throughout school life, with long-lasting impact on social life, including employability and incomes. The development of the research on numerical cognition occurred together with the study of math learning and its related deficits, in special developmental dyscalculia (DD). The present chapter explores the literature on DD in two levels. First, we discuss about the nosological status of the disorder together with considerations about its diagnosis. Afterward we review the main research findings regarding the cognitive underpinnings of DD, from numerical representations to domain general processes, including working memory and language.


  • dyscalculia
  • learning disabilities
  • dyscalculia diagnosis
  • numerical cognition
  • learning

1. Introduction

Living in today’s society requires well-developed mathematical competencies. As more cliché as this statement may sound, there is a robust scientific literature indicating that higher mathematical competencies are associated with higher employability and incomes [1, 2, 3], profitable financial decisions [4], and even better health outcomes [5]. Despite this well-established body of evidence, many adults and children, even from developed countries, struggle to perform simple arithmetic [6].

The reasons for failing at math are diverse and include socioeconomic [7, 8], educational [9], and emotional factors [10, 11]. Math is a complex and abstract discipline and depends mostly of formal instruction at school. Moreover, mathematical knowledge is also largely cumulative, so that newer, more complex, and abstract concepts depend on previous knowledge, which can either be acquired intuitively, like reciting the sequence of number words, or also formally at school. Therefore, we can say that a great part of the difficulties faced by children when learning or performing math activities are due to the complexity of mathematics itself. It is known that, compared to other disciplines, difficulty in learning math is already observed in children in the first years of school [12].

Some children, nevertheless, show persistent and important difficulties in learning math, which cannot be explained by socioeconomic, emotional, educational, psychiatric, or intellectual factors. In these cases the label developmental dyscalculia (DD) is often applied, and difficulties encompass a broad range of mathematical tasks, like reading and writing numbers in different formats, comparing numbers and quantities, and performing the basic arithmetical operations [7, 13, 14, 15, 16]. Some authors also indicate deficits in abilities concerning magnitude representation and the comprehension and use of symbolic codes to represent numerical information [17, 18, 19]. The estimates for prevalence of DD vary from 3 to 6% of school-aged children [7, 20, 21].

Despite the relative consensus about what are the difficulties that characterize DD, there is still some debate concerning the diagnostic criteria, neuropsychological underpinnings, and rehabilitation strategies. In the following sections, we will discuss in detail each of these three topics.


2. Nosological status

2.1 Diagnosis

Two main questions concern the diagnosis of DD. The first question is about the diagnostic criteria, and in the literature on the epidemiology of learning disabilities, three approaches are commonly reported. The discrepancy criteria are probably the most common in research studies and define math learning disability from the discrepancy between an average of above- average performance on general cognitive capacity (often the IQ) and the low performance on standardized math tests. The absolute threshold criteria is similar to the discrepancy criteria, but the disability is defined solely by the low performance in a standardized math test. The response to intervention criteria establish the diagnosis after investigating how the child responds to a set of psychopedagogical interventions. In this way, the persistency of the difficulty and not the discrepancy between capacity and performance is the main criteria for diagnosis.

The second main question concerns the definition on how low the performance in an achievement test must be in order to diagnose DD. The cutoff scores frequently used are 30th, 25th, 10th, and 5th percentiles. Higher cutoff scores (25th and 30th percentiles) are less conservative and, naturally, more prone to false positives. Lower cutoff score is more conservative when labeling children and less prone to false positive. Some authors argue that the sample of individuals labeled under higher cutoff scores is more heterogeneous, with their difficulties in math being more attributable to social, educational, and motivational factors and therefore are less stable over time [22]. On the other hand, the individuals whose performance falls into the more conservative cutoff scores are a more homogeneous group, and their difficulties are more probably associated to cognitive factors. Mazzocco [15] suggests that the individuals with performance under the fifth percentile must be identified as DD, and those with performance under the 30th percentile must be identified as “mathematics difficulties.”

2.2 Comorbidity and cognitive heterogeneity

The investigation of DD nosology also involves studying its comorbidities with other syndromes and how the cognitive profile varies among individuals. It is estimated that only 30% of the DD children are free of comorbidities [23]. The main comorbidities of DD are with developmental dyslexia and ADHD, with comorbidity rates of 40% for the first [24] and between 25 and 42% for the second [23, 25].

According to Rubinsten and Henik [26], different cognitive deficits can be the cause of difficulties in learning math, with comorbidities being mostly due to a combination of deficits. For example, the pure cases (for which the label DD is applied) are due to a deficit in the abstract representation of number, in the cognitive level, and a deficit in the functioning of the intraparietal sulcus, in the neural level. The comorbidity of dyscalculia and ADHD would be explained by the co-occurrence of deficits in the processing of number and in attentional mechanisms. In turn, comorbidity with dyslexia is due to a single deficit in the angular gyrus that would cause a deficit in associating symbols (Arabic numbers, words) to a meaning. The cases of comorbidity would be referred as mathematics learning difficulties (MLD).


3. Cognitive mechanisms

Following the diversity of activities involved in math and the heterogeneity of manifestations observed in mathematics difficulties, the cognitive mechanisms are also diverse and related to basic numerical representations, working memory, visuospatial reasoning, and language. In the following, the literature on each of these mechanisms will be reviewed in more detail.

3.1 Nonsymbolic representations

Humans, like all other animals, are born with only a rudimentary, language-independent, system dedicated to grasping quantities from the environment [27]. Naturally, this system is not able to process numerical symbols, which are, from a phylogenetic perspective, a very recent cultural invention that demands enculturation in order to be assimilated by the human brain [28]. This inherited preverbal number knowledge operates in two forms, which are considered independent subsystems: the object-tracking system (OTS) and the approximate number system (ANS; [27]). The OTS represents small numerosities up to four with high accuracy and reaches its developmental plateau early in development. The ANS, in turn, is responsible for the representation of larger numerosities analogically and, therefore, with increasingly imprecision. One largely accepted model suggests that the ANS represents numbers in an approximate and logarithmically compressed fashion, according to the classical psychophysical laws of Weber and Fechner [29].

Since the last decade, the relationship between basic numerical representations and performance on mathematics has been in the spotlight for many research groups. A handful of evidence has indicated a positive relation between ANS accuracy and math performance [30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37]. Moreover, it has also been shown that children with DD are impaired even in simple tasks that tap ANS representations, such as estimating the numerical size of a set of dots and comparing two sets of dots [17, 38, 39].

A very well-established theory is that DD is the result of a deficit in the foundational representations of numbers [14, 26]. For some researchers, this deficitary representation of numbers lies in the ANS [17]. Other researchers, in turn, propose that the deficitary numerical system in DD is the numerosity coding, which is responsible for processing precise, but not continuous, numerical quantities, and in which the whole arithmetical thinking is based on. For a detailed discussion about these hypotheses, see Butterworth [14].

3.2 Symbolic representations

Basic numerical representations are not restricted to nonsymbolic representations. Actually, learning symbolic systems for representing numbers is a landmark in the development of mathematical reasoning. As children learn to speak a sequence of numerical words, they are still devoid of any quantitative meaning [40]. Gradually, these number words are associated with nonsymbolic numerical representations [41, 42]. The mapping between a list of words and their respective numerical representations (meanings) will be established gradually as children become able to perform a range of new tasks. For example, they can use these numeric words to label a set of objects (say “six” when looking to six dolls at a glance). These activities only develop completely around the age of five, when children master the principle of cardinality [43].

Schneider and collaborators [44], in a meta-analysis study, found that the association with performance in arithmetic tests is stronger for symbolic comparison tasks than for the nonsymbolic ones. Furthermore, a find consistently reported by studies indicates that children with DD exhibit weaker performance than controls in tasks requiring comparison of symbolic numbers, like Arabic numbers and number words [18, 38, 45, 46, 47]. According to a model proposed by Rousselle and Noël [18], DD can also occur due to a deficit in accessing nonsymbolic representations from numerical symbols (access deficit hypothesis).

3.3 Language

Language influences mathematics in different ways. Many mathematical tasks rely on verbal processing, such as learning the multiplication table, writing and reading numbers, and learning the Arabic code. According to Simmons et al. [48], the relationship between phonological awareness (often measured by a rhyme detection or phoneme elision tasks) and math learning is independent of measures of vocabulary and nonverbal reasoning, thus indicating a genuine verbal-numerical relationship.

Language skills also characterize an important landmark in the development of mathematical abilities. A special case is the ability to convert between numerical notations, often measured by tasks of number writing and number reading, and called number transcoding. Number transcoding is especially important early in school life, since it demands the understanding of basic lexical and syntactic components of Arabic and verbal numerals. As suggested by previous studies, understanding the place-value syntax of Arabic numbers and matching it with number words constitutes a significant landmark that young children must reach in order to succeed in mathematical education [49].

Some scientific evidence suggests that children master the numerical codes after 3 or 4 years of schooling. During the first year of elementary school (around 7-year-old), children still struggle to write and read Arabic numerals [50, 51]. Shortly after, in third and fourth grades (8- and 9-year-old children), most of these difficulties with Arabic numerals are already overcome [38]. This issue was further investigated by Moura et al. [52] in a study using more complex number transcoding tasks and investigating children with and without MLD. Results revealed significant number transcoding difficulties in children with MLD. These difficulties were more prominent in Arabic number writing, but the magnitude of this difference decreased with age, indicating that children with MLD tend to reach the performance of their typical achievers peers. Importantly, from the first to fourth school grades, most of the errors observed in children, regardless of their achievement in mathematics, are well explained by the syntactic complexity of numerals, as most errors were observed in numbers with more digits, and more syntactically complex (like 1002, 4015). A detailed analysis of transcoding errors suggested that children with MLD struggle with the syntactic structure of Arabic numerals, mainly with 3- and 4-digit numbers, until the fourth grade, while typical achievers seem to overcome these difficulties around the third grade. Moreover, the acquisition of lexical primitives seems to be well developed in typical achievers by the first year of elementary school, while children with MLD show a small though significant proportion of lexical errors (e.g., writing twelve as 20).

Another important evidence for this interaction between numerical and verbal skills is the high comorbidity between DD and dyslexia. Epidemiological studies indicate that approximately 40% of dyslexic children also have deficits in arithmetic [24]. Some studies suggest comorbidity rates up to 70%, which may be overestimated because of diagnostic criteria and constructs evaluated by standardized arithmetic and reading tests [53]. Importantly, the comorbidity between DD and dyslexia is greater than would be expected by chance if the two entities were fully segregated independently. An influential hypothesis states that children with developmental dyslexia struggle with numerical activities that rely on verbal codes, such as number transcoding and learning arithmetic facts [54].

3.4 Working memory and attention

The association between mathematics skills and working memory and attention has been extensively reported in the literature. In fact, a high variety of numerical tasks including number transcoding, complex calculations, and problem solving require working memory resources and planning. According to Rubinsten and Henik [26], a relevant part of children with DD also present comorbid attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [21, 55].

Interestingly, a brain region that is considered crucial for numerical development, the intraparietal sulcus, is also involved in a range of nonnumerical activities, including attentional control and reasoning [56, 57, 58, 59]. Recent studies propose that an important cognitive mark of DD is attentional control. Gilmore et al. [60] found that, due to strategies aiming to control for nonnumerical visual parameters, commonly used dot comparison tasks require inhibitory control mechanisms. Surprisingly, this executive function component is more strongly related to mathematics achievement than the numerical components of magnitude comparison tasks. Similarly, Szucs et al. [61] also proposed that children with DD have more difficulties in inhibiting irrelevant nonnumerical information than their typically developing peers.

3.5 Visuospatial abilities

Together with working memory, visuospatial abilities are one of the most critical abilities related to mathematics achievement, being associated mainly with performance in multidigit calculation, mainly in those requiring borrowing and carry-over procedures [62, 63].

Despite the evidence for a role of visuospatial skills in calculation, a pure visuospatial deficit in children with DD is perhaps less clear than the other cognitive skills discussed above, as there is no well-established visuospatial subgroup of DD. The co-occurrence of mathematics and visuospatial deficits were widely discussed in the context of the so-called nonverbal learning disability [64, 65, 66].

If, on the one hand, there is no consensus about a visuospatial deficit in DD, on the other hand, many studies found that children with DD present deficits in the visuospatial component of working memory [61, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73]. Importantly, the verbal component of working memory is frequently reported as preserved in these cases [61, 74].


4. Conclusion

Even though the study of the cognitive basis of numerical representations and mathematical performance is relatively new, a consistent body of scientific evidence has already been gathered, allowing important advances in the comprehension of the development of mathematical abilities and in the identification and remediation of mathematical difficulties. Nevertheless, this is a broad field of study and there are still several open questions. Currently, longitudinal and replication studies are especially relevant [75].


  1. 1. Parsons S, Bynner J. Does mumeracy matter more? Education. Institute of Education, University of London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy; 2006
  2. 2. Dowker A. Individual Differences in Arithmetic: Implications for Psychology, Neuroscience and Education. New York, NY: Psychology Press; 2005
  3. 3. Peters E, Tompkins MK, Knoll MAZ, Ardoin SP, Shoots-Reinhard B, Meara AS. Despite high objective numeracy, lower numeric confidence relates to worse financial and medical outcomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2019;116(39):19386-19391. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1903126116
  4. 4. Lusardi A, Tufano P. Debt literacy, financial experiences, and overindebtedness. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance. 2015;14(4):332-368. DOI: 10.1017/S1474747215000232
  5. 5. Låg T, Bauger L, Lindberg M, Friborg O. The role of numeracy and intelligence in health-risk estimation and medical data interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2014;27(2):95-108. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.1788
  6. 6. OECD. OECD Skills Outlook 2019: Thriving in a Digital World. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2019. DOI: 10.1787/df80bc12-en
  7. 7. Gross-Tsur V, Manor O, Shalev RS. Developmental dyscalculia: Prevalence and demographic features. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 1996;38:25-33
  8. 8. Jordan NC, Levine SC. Socioeconomic variation, number competence, and mathematics learning difficulties in young children. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 2009;15(1):60-68
  9. 9. Hattie J. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. New York: Routledge; 2008
  10. 10. Hembree R. The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 1990;21(1):33. DOI: 10.2307/749455
  11. 11. Carey E, Hill F, Devine A, Szücs D. The chicken or the egg? The direction of the relationship between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016;6:1987. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01987
  12. 12. Mazzocco MMM, Hanich LB, Noeder MM. Primary school age students’ spontaneous comments about math reveal emerging dispositions linked to later mathematics achievement. Child Development Research. 2012;170:310. DOI: 10.1155/2012/170310
  13. 13. Butterworth B. Developmental dyscalculia. In: Campbell JID, editor. Handbook of Mathematical Cognition. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press; 2005. pp. 455-467
  14. 14. Butterworth B. Foundational numerical capacities and the origins of dyscalculia. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2010;14(12):534-541. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.007
  15. 15. Mazzocco MMM. Defining and differentiating mathematical learning disabilities and difficulties. In: Berch DB, Mazzocco MMM, editors. Why Is Math So Hard for some Children? The Nature and Origins of Mathematical Learning Difficulties and Disabilities. Baltimore: Brookes; 2007. pp. 29-47
  16. 16. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder. 5th ed. Washington, DC: Author; 2013
  17. 17. Piazza M, Facoetti A, Trussardi AN, Berteletti I, Conte S, Lucangeli D, et al. Developmental trajectory of number acuity reveals a severe impairment in developmental dyscalculia. Cognition. 2010;116(1):33-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.012
  18. 18. Rousselle L, Noël MP. Basic numerical skills in children with mathematics learning disabilities: A comparison of symbolic vs non-symbolic number magnitude processing. Cognition. 2007;102(3):361-395. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.01.005
  19. 19. Wilson AJ, Dehaene S. Number sense and developmental dyscalculia. In: Coch D, Dawson G, Fischer KW, editors. Human Behavior, Learning, and the Developing Brain: Atypical Development. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press; 2007. pp. 212-238
  20. 20. Reigosa-Crespo V, Valdés-Sosa M, Butterworth B, Estévez N, Rodríguez M, Santos E, et al. Basic numerical capacities and prevalence of developmental dyscalculia: The Havana survey. Developmental Psychology. 2012;48:123-135. DOI: 10.1037/a0025356
  21. 21. von Aster MG, Shalev RS. Number development and developmental dyscalculia. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2007;49:868-873
  22. 22. Murphy MM, Mazzocco MMM, Hanich LB, Early MC. Cognitive characteristics of children with Mathematics Learning Disability (MLD) vary as a function of the cutoff criterion used to define MLD. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2007;40(5):458-478. DOI: 10.1177/00222194070400050901
  23. 23. Desoete A. Co-morbidity in mathematical learning disabilities: Rule or exception? The Open Rehabilitation Journal. 2008;1:15-16
  24. 24. Lewis C, Hitch GJ, Walker P. The prevalence of specific arithmetic difficulties and specific reading difficulties in 9- to 10-year-old boys and girls. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1994;35:283-292. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01162.x
  25. 25. Silva D, Colvin L, Glauert R, Stanley F, Srinivasjois R, Bower C. Literacy and numeracy underachievement in boys and girls with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders. 2015;19:1-12. DOI: 10.1177/1087054715596575
  26. 26. Rubinsten O, Henik A. Developmental dyscalculia: Different mechanisms might not mean different mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2009;13:92-99
  27. 27. Piazza M. Neurocognitive start-up tools for symbolic number representations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2010;14(12):542-551
  28. 28. Dehaene S, Cohen L. Cultural recycling of cortical maps. Neuron. 2007;56(2):384-398. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.004
  29. 29. Piazza M, Izard V, Pinel P, Le Bihan D, Dehaene S. Tuning curves for approximate numerosity in the human intraparietal sulcus. Neuron. 2004;44(3):547-555. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.10.014
  30. 30. Feigenson L, Libertus ME, Halberda J. Links between the intuitive sense of number and formal mathematics ability. Child Development Perspectives. 2013;7(2):74-79. DOI: 10.1111/cdep.12019
  31. 31. Gilmore CK, McCarthy SE, Spelke ES. Non-symbolic arithmetic abilities and mathematics achievement in the first year of formal schooling. Cognition. 2010;115(3):394-406. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.02.002
  32. 32. Halberda J, Mazzocco MMM, Feigenson L. Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature. 2008;455(7213):665-668. DOI: 10.1038/nature07246
  33. 33. Halberda J, Ly R, Wilmer JB, Naiman DQ , Germine L. Number sense across the lifespan as revealed by a massive Internet-based sample. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2012;109(28):11116-11120. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1200196109
  34. 34. Libertus ME, Feigenson L, Halberda J. Preschool acuity of the approximate number system correlates with school math ability. Developmental Science. 2011;14(6):1292-1300. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01080.x
  35. 35. Starr A, Libertus ME, Brannon EM. Number sense in infancy predicts mathematical abilities in childhood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2013;110(45):18116-18120. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1302751110
  36. 36. Starr A, DeWind NK, Brannon EM. The contributions of numerical acuity and non-numerical stimulus features to the development of the number sense and symbolic math achievement. Cognition. 2017;168:222-233. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.07.004
  37. 37. Starr A, Tomlinson RC, Brannon EM. The acuity and manipulability of the ANS have separable influences on preschoolers’ symbolic math achievement. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018;9:2554. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02554
  38. 38. Landerl K, Bevan A, Butterworth B. Developmental dyscalculia and basic numerical capacities: A study of 8-9-year-old students. Cognition. 2004;93(2):99-125. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.11.004
  39. 39. Mazzocco MMM, Feigenson L, Halberda J. Impaired acuity of the approximate number system underlies mathematical learning disability (dyscalculia). Child Development. 2011;82(4):1224-1237. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01608.x
  40. 40. Sarnecka BW, Lee MD. Levels of number knowledge during early childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2009;103(3):325-337. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2009.02.007
  41. 41. Gallistel CR, Gelman R. Non-verbal numerical cognition: From reals to integers. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2000;4(2):59-65. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01424-2
  42. 42. Krajewski K, Schneider W. Early development of quantity to number-word linkage as a precursor of mathematical school achievement and mathematical difficulties: Findings from a four-year longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction. 2009;19(6):513-526. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.10.002
  43. 43. Le Corre M, Carey S. One, two, three, four, nothing more: An investigation of the conceptual sources of the verbal counting principles. Cognition. 2007;105(2):395-438. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.10.005
  44. 44. Schneider M, Beeres K, Coban L, Merz S, Susan Schmidt S, Stricker J, et al. Associations of non-symbolic and symbolic numerical magnitude processing with mathematical competence: A meta-analysis. Developmental Science. 2017;20(3):e12372. DOI: 10.1111/desc.12372
  45. 45. De Smedt B, Gilmore CK. Defective number module or impaired access? Numerical magnitude processing in first graders with mathematical difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2011;108(2):278-292. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.09.003
  46. 46. De Smedt B, Noël MP, Gilmore C, Ansari D. How do symbolic and non-symbolic numerical magnitude processing skills relate to individual differences in children’s mathematical skills? A review of evidence from brain and behavior. Trends in Neuroscience and Education. 2013;2:48-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.tine.2013.06.001
  47. 47. Landerl K, Kölle C. Typical and atypical development of basic numerical skills in elementary school. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2009;103(4):546-565. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2008.12.006
  48. 48. Simmons F, Singleton C, Horne J. Phonological awareness and visual-spatial sketchpad functioning predict early arithmetic attainment: Evidence from a longitudinal study. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2008;20:711-722. DOI: 10.1080/09541440701614922
  49. 49. Geary DC. From infancy to adulthood: The development of numerical abilities. European Child Adolescent Psychiatry. 2000;2(22):II11-II16. DOI: 10.1007/s007870070004
  50. 50. Geary DC, Hoard MK, Hamson CO. Numerical and arithmetical cognition: Patterns of functions and deficits in children at risk for a mathematical disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 1999;74(3):213-239
  51. 51. Geary DC, Hamson CO, Hoard MK. Numerical and arithmetical cognition: A longitudinal study of process and concept deficits in children with learning disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2000;77(3):236-263
  52. 52. Moura R, Wood G, Pinheiro-Chagas P, Lonnemann J, Krinzinger H, Willmes K, et al. Transcoding abilities in typical and atypical mathematics achievers: The role of working memory and procedural and lexical competencies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2013;116(3):707-727. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2013.07.008
  53. 53. Landerl K, Moll K. Comorbidity of learning disorders: Prevalence and familial transmission. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2010;51:287-294
  54. 54. Simmons FR, Singleton C. Do weak phonological representations impact on arithmetic development? A review of research into arithmetic and dyslexia. Dyslexia. 2008;14(2):77-94. DOI: 10.1002/dys.341
  55. 55. Currie J, Stabile M. Child mental health and human capital accumulation: The case of ADHD. Journal of Health Economics. 2006;25(6):1094-1118. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.03.001
  56. 56. Corbetta M, Shulman GL. Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2002;3(3):201-215. DOI: 10.1038/nrn755
  57. 57. Goodale MA, Milner AD, Jakobson LS, Carey DP. A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature. 1991;349(6305):154-156. DOI: 10.1038/349154a0
  58. 58. Jung RE, Haier RJ. The parieto-frontal integration theory (P-FIT) of intelligence: Converging neuroimaging evidence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2007;30(2):135-154. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X07001185
  59. 59. Ungerleider LG, Haxby JV. “What” and “where” in the human brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 1994;4(2):157-165. DOI: 10.1016/0959-4388(94)90066-3
  60. 60. Gilmore C, Attridge N, Clayton S, Cragg L, Johnson S, Marlow N, et al. Individual differences in inhibitory control, not non-verbal number acuity, correlate with mathematics achievement. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e67374. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067374
  61. 61. Szucs D, Devine A, Soltesz F, Nobes A, Gabriel F. Developmental dyscalculia is related to visuo-spatial memory and inhibition impairment. Cortex. 2013;49(10):2674-2688. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2013.06.007
  62. 62. Moeller K, Pixner S, Zuber J, Kaufmann L, Nuerk HC. Early place-value understanding as a precursor for later arithmetic performance-A longitudinal study on numerical development. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2011;32(5):1837-1851. DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.03.012
  63. 63. Raghubar K, Cirino P, Barnes M, Ewing-Cobbs L, Fletcher J, Fuchs L. Errors in multi-digit arithmetic and behavioral inattention in children with math difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2009;42:356-371. DOI: 10.1177/0022219409335211
  64. 64. Cornoldi C, Mammarella I, Fine JG. Nonverbal Learning Disabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016
  65. 65. Drummond CR, Ahmad SA, Rourke BP. Rules for the classification of younger children with nonverbal learning disabilities and basic phonological processing disabilities. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 2005;20(2):171-182. DOI: 10.1016/j.acn.2004.05.001
  66. 66. Rourke BP, Conway JA. Disabilities of arithmetic and mathematical reasoning: Perspectives from neurology and neuropsychology. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 1997;30:34-46
  67. 67. Bull R, Espy KA, Wiebe SA. Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers: Longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2008;33:205-228
  68. 68. Geary DC. Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2004;37:4-15
  69. 69. Hitch GJ, McAuley E. Working memory in children with specific arithmetical learning difficulties. British Journal of Psychology. 1991;82(3):375-386. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1991.tb02406.x
  70. 70. Keeler ML, Swanson HL. Does strategy knowledge influence working memory in children with mathematical disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2001;34(5):418-434. DOI: 10.1177/002221940103400504
  71. 71. Passolunghi MC, Siegel LS. Short-term memory, working memory, and inhibitory control in children with difficulties in arithmetic problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2001;80(1):44-57. DOI: 10.1006/jecp.2000.2626
  72. 72. Passolunghi MC, Siegel LS. Working memory and access to numerical information in children with disability in mathematics. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2004;88(4):348-367. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2004.04.002
  73. 73. Swanson HL. Cognitive processes that underlie mathematical precociousness in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2006;93:239-264
  74. 74. Ashkenazi S, Rosenberg-Lee M, Tenison C, Menon V. Weak task-related modulation and stimulus representations during arithmetic problem solving in children with developmental dyscalculia. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. 2012;2(Suppl. 1):S152-S166. DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2011.09.006
  75. 75. Noël MP, Turconi E. Assessing number transcoding in children. European Review of Applied Psychology. 1999;49(4):295-304

Written By

Ricardo Moura, Suzane Garcia and Júlia Beatriz Lopes-Silva

Reviewed: 26 December 2019 Published: 19 February 2020