This is a digitised version of an article from The New York Times’ print archive, prior to the launch of internet publishing in 1996. The Times does not modify, edit, or update these stories in order to preserve them in their original form. We continue to attempt to enhance these archived versions because the digitization process occasionally creates transcription mistakes or other difficulties.

According to a research released today, kids as young as 5 months old exhibit a rudimentary capacity to add and subtract while still in the cradle.

According to the findings, newborns can tell when basic arithmetic such as one plus one or two minus one are done correctly or wrong. The infants in the research demonstrated awareness of a mistaken answer by glancing at the unexpected findings for a longer period of time.

According to the researchers, the discovery, together with corroborating findings on newborns and animals, suggests that humans have an inbuilt proclivity for mathematics, as other scientists have hypothesised for language. ‘Baby is already aware.’

Parents will be particularly interested in the findings since it gives fresh insight on the time a newborn first learns to count. The findings «mean that when parents start teaching their babies numbers, they are not teaching the baby to recognise quantities per se, but rather the names — one, two, three — we use for something the baby already knows,» said Dr. Mark Strauss, a developmental psychologist at the University of Pittsburgh.

The new discovery, reported in Nature by Dr. Karen Wynn, a developmental psychologist at the University of Arizona, is «notable in the history of developmental psychology,» according to Dr. Peter E. Bryant, an Oxford University psychologist, in a journal editorial.

However, some specialists are divided. «This study doesn’t necessarily show that the infants understand maths,» said Dr Patricia Bauer, a psychologist at the University of Minnesota. «It could simply mean that they recognise that the display has changed in a way that violates an expectation, but not that they recognise the change in quantity.»

Other experts on child development agreed in interviews that the findings showing a rudimentary mathematical ability in neonates were legitimate, even though they surprised most people.

«At first blush, it seemed implausible that infants could recognise simple numbers and maths,» said Dr. Lewis Lipsitt, a developmental psychologist at Brown University. «However, in light of a number of supporting findings, it now makes sense.» Mickey Mouse is here to help.

Dr. Wynn utilised a well-established and frequently used approach in the Nature study to determine whether newborns find an event shocking or not: babies would gaze longer at something startling than at something that fulfils their expectations or is familiar. For years, researchers have used this phenomena to examine newborns who are too immature to express their thoughts in other ways.

Dr Wynn utilised four-inch-tall Mickey Mouse miniatures to demonstrate maths challenges to the babies. For the issue one plus one, for example, she showed the newborns one figurine before concealing it behind a little screen. Then, in full view of the child, another figure was put behind the screen. Finally, the screen was removed, exposing both figures. The length of time the infant gazed at the two Mickey Mouse sculptures was monitored by video monitors.

Using the same technique, the researchers would occasionally take the screen away to disclose an incorrect response, such as only one figurine or three when there should have been two. The newborns stared for many seconds longer in these circumstances, showing that they expected the correct response and were astonished by the different number.

According to the researchers, the newborns’ responses did not just reflect an anticipation of more or fewer things. In the one-plus-one experiment, they discovered that when the screen was pulled away to reveal three objects, the newborns gazed for longer than when there were just two. This revealed that the numerical response, rather than the expectation of additional items, influenced the reaction.

«Infants can compute the results of simple arithmetic problems,» Dr. Wynn explained. «It implies that we are approaching the underlying architecture of an infant’s numerical abilities.» This primitive ability serves as a foundation for future mathematical comprehension.»

Dr. Wynn went on to say that the findings suggest that there is an underlying structure in the mind for understanding numbers, similar to what linguist Noam Chomsky has hypothesised for language.

Dr. Wynn’s findings are not the first to imply that newborns have rudimentary arithmetic skills, but they are notable since her processes were meticulously devised to address methodological concerns raised in previous research.

The key point of contention had been whether newborns responded to the quantities of items or to the patterns the objects created. Two items, for example, can be regarded as a line, and three as a triangle, rather than as numbers in and of themselves. Dr. Wynn overcome this obstacle by placing the figurines in a row, whether two or three at a time.

The study builds on previous studies that shown that newborns had a limited capacity to recognise numbers.

Dr. Strauss of the University of Pittsburgh gave newborns a series of pairings of items, such as toy elephants, in a typical experiment. He altered the number of things exhibited in succession to one, three, or four when the newborns lost interest. The newborns gazed longer this time, which was regarded as meaning they could identify the difference between the numbers.

Over the last two decades, researchers have revealed an astounding range of mental talents in babies, «a creature that was once thought to be utterly incompetent and ineffective,» Dr. Bryant stated. Among the shown skills of newborn babies are: distinguishing objects by their shape, size, and colour; and understanding that items exist even when they are out of sight.

The idea that children are born with fundamental math ability «is scientifically plausible,» according to Dr Rochel Gelman, a psychologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. She and other researchers also point to a growing body of data indicating that many kinds of animals, ranging from birds to chimps, have comparable skills to recognise numbers and respond to changes in them.

Though child development specialists familiar with the baby maths research believe that it is sound, they differ on its implications. Dr. Bryant of Oxford University, for example, predicted in a Nature article that children who were better at recognising numbers might grow up to be more skilled mathematicians.

References

Non-symbolic arithmetic abilities and mathematics achievement in the first year of formal schooling
Links Between the Intuitive Sense of Number and Formal Mathematics Ability
Number sense in human infants
Core systems of number
Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability
Is approximate number precision a stable predictor of math ability?