More space, better mathematics: is space a powerful tool or a cornerstone for understanding arithmetic?

Tight cognitive links between space and number processing exist. Usually, Spatial-Numerical Associations (SNAs) are interpreted causally: spatial capabilities are a cornerstone of math skill. We question this seemingly ubiquitous assumption. After presenting SNA taxonomy, we show that only some SNAs correlate with math skill. These correlations are not conclusive: (1) Their directions vary (stronger SNA relates sometimes to better, sometimes to poorer skill), (2) the correlations might be explained by mediator variables (e.g., SNA tasks involve cognitive control or reasoning), (3) the hypothetical course of causality is not resolved: For instance, contrary to conventional theories, arithmetic skills can underlie performance in some SNA tasks. However, benefits of SNA trainings on math skills seem to reinforce the claim of primary SNA role. Nevertheless, tasks used in such trainings may tap cognitive operations required in arithmetic, but not SNA representations themselves. Therefore, using space is a powerful tool rather than a cornerstone for math

Registered replication report on Fischer, Castel, Dodd, and Pratt (2003)

The attentional spatial-numerical association of response codes (Att-SNARC) effect (Fischer, Castel, Dodd, & Pratt, 2003)—the finding that participants are quicker to detect left-side targets when the targets are preceded by small numbers and quicker to detect right-side targets when they are preceded by large numbers—has been used as evidence for embodied number representations and to support strong claims about the link between number and space (e.g., a mental number line). We attempted to replicate Experiment 2 of Fischer et al. by collecting data from 1,105 participants at 17 labs. Across all 1,105 participants and four interstimulus-interval conditions, the proportion of times the effect we observed was positive (i.e., directionally consistent with the original effect) was .50. Further, the effects we observed both within and across labs were minuscule and incompatible with those observed by Fischer et al. Given this, we conclude that we failed to replicate the effect reported by Fischer et al. In addition, our analysis of several participant-level moderators (finger-counting habits, reading and writing direction, handedness, and mathematics fluency and mathematics anxiety) revealed no substantial moderating effects. Our results indicate that the Att-SNARC effect cannot be used as evidence to support strong claims about the link between number and space