See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.

net/publication/5464114

Does finger training increase numerical

performance?

ARTICLE in CORTEX · MAY 2008

Impact Factor: 5.13 · DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2007.08.020 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

66 116

2 AUTHORS:

Maria Gracia-Bafalluy Marie-Pascale Noel

University of Zaragoza Catholic University of Louvain
6 PUBLICATIONS 74 CITATIONS 66 PUBLICATIONS 1,664 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Available from: Marie-Pascale Noel

Retrieved on: 26 September 2015
This article was published in an Elsevier journal. The attached copy
is furnished to the author for non-commercial research and
education use, including for instruction at the author’s institution,
sharing with colleagues and providing to institution administration.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

cortex 44 (2008) 368–375

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cortex

Special issue: Original article

Does finger training increase young

children’s numerical performance?

Maria Gracia-Bafalluy* and Marie-Pascale Noël

Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

article info abstract

Article history: Butterworth (1999) suggested that fingers are important in representing numerosities. Fur-
Received 5 April 2007 thermore, scores on a finger gnosis test are a better predictor of numerical performance up
Accepted 22 August 2007 to 3 years later than intellectual measures (Marinthe et al., 2001; Noël, 2005). We hypothes-
Published online 8 January 2008 ised that training in finger differentiation would increase finger gnosis and might also im-
prove numerical performance. Accordingly, 47 first-grade children were selected and
Keywords: divided into 3 groups: children with poor finger gnosis who followed the finger-differenti-
Finger training ation training programme (G1), a control-intervention who were trained in story compre-
Numerical performance hension (G2), and a group with high finger gnosis scores who just continued with normal
Magnitude representation school lessons (G3). The finger training consisted of 2 weekly sessions of half an hour
each, for 8 weeks. Before the training period, children in G3 performed better in finger gno-
sis and enumeration than children in the two other groups. After the training period this
pattern remained for the children in G2 and G3, but the children in G1 were significantly
better than those in G2 at finger gnosis, representation of numerosities with fingers, and
quantification tasks; they also tended to be better at the processing of Arabic digits. These
results indicate that improving finger gnosis in young children is possible and that it can
provide a useful support to learning mathematics. Such an approach could be particularly
appropriate for children with a developmental Gerstmann syndrome. Theoretically, these
results are important because they suggest a functional link between finger gnosis and
number skills.
ª 2008 Elsevier Masson Srl. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction fundamental basis of numerical knowledge. Indeed, if a child

Fingers have been related to numerical processing for a long
time. In the course of development, fingers are used to repre-
sent numerosities before symbolic representations such as
number words or Arabic digits are employed (Fuson, 1988;
Rusconi et al., 2005), implying that finger use might be the
can count a set of elements but cannot show the correspond-
ing quantity with her/his fingers without counting, it is con-
sidered that she/he does not have a good representation of
quantities (Brissiaud, 2003). Fingers are a support when recit-
ing the numerical chain (see Sato and Lalain, 2008, this issue)
and they might also help children to understand the cardinal

* Corresponding author. 10 place Cardinal Mercier, Faculté de Psychologie – Unité CODE, 1348 Louvain la Neuve, Belgium.
E-mail address: maria.gracia-bafalluy@psp.ucl.ac.be (M. Gracia-Bafalluy).
0010-9452/$ – see front matter ª 2008 Elsevier Masson Srl. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2007.08.020
 Author's personal copy
cortex 44 (2008) 368–375
meaning of number words (Butterworth, 1999; Brissiaud,
2003). Fingers are used to point at each object when counting
a set, which is important in establishing the one-to-one cor-
respondence principle (Gelman and Gallistel, 1978; Gallistel
and Gelman, 1992). Fingers can help to keep track of the
counted items in mental calculations (Geary, 2005) which al-
leviates the burden on working memory (Alibali and DiRusso,
1999) and increases accuracy (Geary, 2005). Finally, as we
have 10 fingers, using them to count and represent numbers
probably also helps to develop an understanding of the 10-
base numerical system. More specifically, Butterworth (1999,
pp. 249–250) hypothesised that ‘‘without the ability to attach
number representations to the neural representations of fin-
gers and hands in their normal locations, the numbers them-
selves will never have a normal representation in the brain’’.
Based on this observation of the role of fingers in the course
of numerical learning, Fayol et al. (1998) and Marinthe et al.
(2001) have shown that a neuropsychological test at 5 years
of age, including measures of finger gnosis (i.e., the ability to
differentiate one’s own fingers when they are touched with-
out any visual clues), was a powerful predictor of numerical
ability up to 3 years later. Indeed it was even stronger than
a general intellectual measure. A similar finding was pub-
lished by Noël (2005), showing that measures of finger gnosis
predicted scores on numerical ability tests 15 months later,
but did not predict reading ability.
This relationship between fingers and numbers has also
been reported in adults. Andres et al. (2004, see also Andres
et al., 2008, this issue; Fischer, 2008, this issue) showed that
opening or closing the finger grip is mediated by the per-
ception of a single Arabic digit: grip closure gets faster as
the presented digit gets smaller, and grip opening gets
faster as the digit gets bigger.
Research has also pointed out the anatomical proximity of
the brain areas subserving the processing of numbers and fin-
gers (Dehaene et al., 2003; Zago and Pesenti, 2002). Both the
precentral gyrus and the parietal cortex are involved in finger
and number representations. For instance, Simon et al. (2002)
have shown that both specific and common regions in the
intraparietal sulcus, which are irrigated by the angular gyrus
artery, are activated during calculation and manual tasks
(i.e., pointing and grasping). This could explain the frequent
co-occurrence of deficits in number processing and finger
representation. In particular, Gerstmann (1927, 1940) reported
that a lesion of the parietal >cortex of the dominant hemi-
sphere led to four symptoms: finger agnosia, agraphia, right-
left disorientation, and acalculia. This association of four
symptoms is called the Gerstmann syndrome. Its existence
has been questioned (Benton, 1961, 1977), but there are still
reports of adults showing such a syndrome (Strub and
Geschwind, 1974; Mayer et al., 1999), and of children exhibit-
ing a developmental Gerstmann syndrome (Grigsby et al.,
1987; Suresh and Sebastian, 2000).
In summary, research from developmental psychology,
brain imaging, and neuropsychology have all shown evi-
dences of a special link between numbers and fingers. In par-
ticular, the use of fingers in childhood seems to be really
important in numerical development.
Studies with children and with brain-damaged adults have
reported an association between finger gnosis and numerical
369
abilities. As mentioned above, this association might just be
due to the proximity of the brain areas subserving the pro-
cessing of these representations. But it is also possible that
the relationship is functional. If children have poor finger
gnosis, they may not be able to use their fingers efficiently
to count, calculate, or show numerosities and this might pre-
vent them from developing good numerical skills. Such
a functional hypothesis cannot be properly tested through
correlative studies showing associations of symptoms in
groups of brain-damaged patients, related developmental
trends in children, or common neural bases to the processes.
Rehabilitation is a much more powerful way of addressing
this issue. If there is a functional link between finger gnosis
and number skills, then increasing finger gnosis should lead
to improvement in number skills. Such a functional link
might only exist at some time-points in development, and if
so it would probably occur in the earlier phases of numerical
learning.
Accordingly, in this study, we address the question of a pos-
sible functional link between finger gnosis and number skills
in young children entering primary school. First, we compared
the numerical abilities of children with good or poor finger
gnosis. Second, we trained the children with poor finger gno-
sis in finger differentiation (a control group also received
training). The impact of the training on both finger gnosis
and numerical performance was examined. If good finger gno-
sis contributes to the development of numerical skill then this
training might also have positive consequences on numerical
skills. Some indirect evidence for such a link has been
reported recently by Gracia-Bafalluy et al. (submitted for pub-
lication) who showed that children who play a musical instru-
ment such as the piano or guitar, which requires good finger
differentiation, perform better than children who do not
play an instrument, not only on finger gnosis tests but also
on numerical tasks.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The purpose of this project was to evaluate finger gnosis and
numerical abilities in the early phases of learning mathe-
matics, so we chose to study children entering primary
schooling. First graders (112) from three different normal
Belgian schools were screened for finger gnosis. From this
sample, we selected the 33 children with the lowest scores
and the 14 children with the highest scores; all of them
were native French speakers and parental consent for par-
ticipating in the study was given. The group of 33 children
with poor scores was randomly divided into two subgroups:
the action group (G1, mean age 6.4 years, SD ¼ 3 months;
range 5.8–6.8 years old; nine girls, total N ¼ 16 children) re-
ceived training in finger differentiation, while the control
group (G2, mean age 6.4 years, SD ¼ 5 months; range
5.9–7.9 years old; nine girls, total N ¼ 17 children) received
training in story comprehension. The group with good finger
gnosis scores (G3, mean age 6.4 years, SD ¼ 4 months; range
5.8–6.9 years old; seven girls, total N ¼ 14 children) did not
receive any training. This control group allowed us to
 Author's personal copy
370 cortex 44 (2008) 368–375
measure the development of numerical performance in
a group with good finger gnosis.
2.2. Testing material
The tests were administered individually to each of the 47 par-
ticipants. It included measures of finger gnosis and number
processing.
2.2.1. Finger gnosis assessment
Finger gnosis was measured by the task used by Noël (2005).
The child was asked to place her/his dominant hand, palm
down on a table with the fingers spread out. A white sheet
of paper was placed between the child and her/his hand, so
that the hand could not be seen. Stimulation consisted of
a light press on the nail. First, isolated touches were per-
formed: the examiner pressed the nail of a finger, and the
sheet was removed. The child was then asked to point with
the index finger of the non-dominant hand to the nail she/
he thought had been touched. Each finger was touched twice,
giving a total of 10 touches, randomly organised. Then, five
simultaneous touches of two fingers were administered. Fi-
nally, five trials consisted of touching two fingers successively
and the child had to point, in the correct order, to the two fin-
gers she/he thought had been touched (a correct response cor-
responds to the correct identification of the two fingers
touched in the correct order). All correct trials were scored
as 1, giving a maximum of 20.
Two drawing tasks were presented to the child: the ‘‘draw
a man’’ test (Goodenough and Pasquasy, 1967) and the ‘‘draw
a hand’’ task. We reasoned that if children’s finger gnosis im-
proves, this might be reflected in drawings of the hand (e.g.,
in reproducing the correct number of fingers) but should
not change their ability to draw a whole body. The ‘‘draw
a man’’ test was scored on 35 criteria: 17 concerned the pres-
ence of diverse elements (head, legs, arms, etc.), six concerned
the relations between the elements (e.g., arms and legs at-
tached to the body), six concerned the proportions of different
parts of the body (e.g., the parts of the face), and six were
a qualitative score for the whole drawing. One point was
awarded for each correct item, with 0 if the item was absent
or unrecognisable.
In the ‘‘draw a hand’’ task, the child’s non-dominant hand
was placed under the table so as not to be visible, and the child
was asked to draw a hand, but was not allowed to put the pen
down or to use his/her drawing hand as a model. The scoring
was based on seven criteria: the presence of five fingers, an op-
position between the thumb and the other fingers, a differen-
tiation between the palm and the fingers, the fingers being
attached to the palm, the fingers being the correct relative
sizes, the palm and the fingers being in proportion, and the
quality of the drawing (e.g., a two-dimensional shape for
each finger, not just a simple line). For each of these criteria,
a score of 2 points was given if the criterion was met, 1 point
if the criteria was partially but not fully met, and 0 point if it
was not met at all. The maximum score is thus 14.
2.2.2. Numerical skills assessment
The numerical testing included assessments of the represen-
tation of numerosities by fingers, the verbal numerical chain,
comparison of the magnitude of Arabic digits, ordinality
judgements, quantification tasks (subitizing and enumera-
tion), and additions.
In the ‘‘how many fingers’’ task (similar to Noël, 2005;
DiLuca et al., 2006), photographs of hands were presented,
showing the palms as a ‘‘subjective’’ perspective on hands
would do, on a computer screen placed in front of the child
(50 cm distance). The child was asked to state the number
of fingers raised as fast as possible. Pictures include canoni-
cal and non-canonical finger shapes. The canonical finger
shapes are those a Belgian child would usually use when
counting on his/her fingers: raising the right thumb for
one, the right thumb and the index finger for two and con-
tinuing with the natural order of fingers for larger numbers.
For quantities above five, all the fingers of the right hand are
raised and the counting continues using the fingers of the
left hand in the same manner. Ten canonical finger shapes
and nine non-canonical ones (i.e., any other configuration)
were each shown twice each, making a total of 38 items.
One point was given for each correct answer. Six items
were presented before the task, to help the child understand
the instructions.
The verbal numerical chain was assessed for both its ex-
tension and elaboration. For the extension, the child was
asked to count as far as possible and was stopped if and
when she/he arrived at 100. The score was the largest number
the child reached, allowing one local error (i.e., the omission of
one number word or the inversion of two consecutive number
words). The level of elaboration of the verbal numerical chain
was tested with three tasks: (1) counting on from a number
(two items: from 7 and from 8); (2) counting with a lower
and upper limit (three items: from 8 to 14, 9 to 16 and 7 to
15); and (3) counting ‘‘x’’ steps from a starting point (four
items: ‘‘starting at 3, you must count 2 steps’’; from 8, 2 steps;
from 9, 3 steps; and from 7, 8 steps).
The processing of Arabic digits was evaluated in two tasks
differing only in the instruction: a magnitude comparison task
and an ordinality judgement task. In both tasks, pairs of Ara-
bic digits between 1 and 9 differing by a small (1) or a large nu-
merical distance (3 or 4) (e.g., 6 and 7, or 5 and 8) were
presented on a computer screen facing the child (at about
50 cm). The pairs appeared after a fixation point (for
500 msec) and remained on the screen until a response was
given by the child. They were followed by a blank screen
(500 msec). In the magnitude comparison task, children were
asked to press a key on the side of the larger digit. In the ordi-
nality judgement, they had to press the key on the side of the
digit that comes first when counting. Turconi et al. (2006)
showed that this simple change in instruction guided the par-
ticipant to process two different dimensions of the number: its
cardinal and its ordinal value. Response times (RTs) and errors
were encoded.
Two quantification tasks were administered. In the subi-
tizing task, 25 presentations of sets of 2–6 items (five sets
for each number of items) were presented in a random order
on a computer screen for 300 msec, after a fixation point
(500 msec), and followed by a blank screen (500 msec). The
child was asked to say how many items were present. In
the counting task, a set of items was randomly distributed
on a sheet of paper. There were two sets of 12 and 16 items
 Author's personal copy
cortex 44 (2008) 368–375
and one set of 14 and 18 items. The child was asked to count
and say how many items there were (the maximum score
being 6). Then, to assess the non-pertinence of order princi-
ple (i.e., the fact that the numerosity is independent of the
order in which the items are counted, as defined by Gelman
and Gallistel, 1978), the child was presented with a 12-item
set to count. When she/he had finished, the examiner
showed her/him a different pointing sequence than the one
already used – starting with a different element and follow-
ing a different order – and asked ‘‘if I count like this, how
many items will there be?’’ The child’s answer was consid-
ered correct if he/she said ‘‘12’’ without counting the items.
This question was asked a second time with yet another
pointing sequence.
Finally, 19 single-digit additions were presented with Ara-
bic digits on paper cards: 10 with a sum less than or equal to
10, and nine with a sum between 11 and 17. There were no
ties and no additions with 0 or 1 as an operand. The accuracy
of the responses was recorded.
2.3. Testing procedure
The tasks were administered individually before starting the
intervention programme (pre-training testing), and 2 weeks
after the end of that intervention (post-training testing), i.e.,
about 2 months later.
Fig. 1 – (a) Labyrinth game. (b) Pointing game. (c) Piano game, natural sequence. (d) Piano game, random stimuli.
371
2.4. Intervention material
2.4.1. G1: finger-differentiation intervention
The training aimed at helping children differentiate their fin-
gers, in terms of both sensitivity and motility. To that end,
children learned an association between each finger and a col-
our. Each session started by putting a coloured sticker on each
finger nail of every child in the group, keeping the same col-
ours for all the activities: thumb-white, index-green, middle-
blue, ring-yellow, and little-red. The activities were designed
so that the number of fingers involved was progressively in-
creased; thus, the level of difficulty of the exercises increased
progressively throughout the intervention programme. We in-
cluded a fixed number of trials for each level. All the activities
were first performed with the dominant hand and then with
the non-dominant one. Four different games were used.
The labyrinth game consisted of coloured interlinked path-
ways, including from 2 to 5 different colours. A total of 20 lab-
yrinths were proposed, including four exercises for each
number of fingers involved. The children’s task was to follow
each colour pathway with the corresponding finger, so that
their attention was concentrated on the relevant finger for
some seconds. Fig. 1a gives an example of a three-colour laby-
rinth (although in the graphic they appear as different grey
levels). So, children had to follow the green pathway first
with the index finger of the dominant hand and then with
 Author's personal copy
372 cortex 44 (2008) 368–375
the index finger of the non-dominant hand. Then, they had to
follow the yellow pathway with the dominant ring finger, fol-
lowed by the non-dominant one. And finally, the blue pathway
was followed by the dominant and then the non-dominant
middle finger.
The pointing game consisted of coloured circles of about
2  2 cm aligned in sets of 4–5 rows and 5–8 columns, with
a progressive difficulty level from 2 to 5 colours. The child-
ren’s task was to point to each circle, with the finger having
the corresponding colour. For instance, in Fig. 1b, four colours
are involved: white (which corresponded to the thumb), red
(little finger), yellow (ring finger) and blue (middle finger).
Children had to start by pointing to the first (white) circle
with the thumb, and then to the second (red) circle with the
little finger, continuing with the ring finger for the yellow
circle and the middle finger for the blue circle and so on.
The whole exercise was then repeated with the fingers of
the non-dominant hand.
In the piano game, children were shown a sequence of col-
oured rectangles, arranged as if they were piano keys. First, pia-
nos with colours following the natural consecutive sequence of
the 10 fingers were used (the thumb first, then the index, mid-
dle, ring and little finger), so that the children could understand
and develop the skill of identifying each square and following
the order of the squares (see Fig. 1c). Later the task included
from 2 to 5 colours randomly distributed, and an increasing
quantity of stimuli (see Fig. 1d). The child’s task was to follow
the colour sequence with the corresponding finger.
Finally, children were trained in performing a grip, with the
thumb contacting each of the other fingers in turn. This task
aimed to work each possible combination, closing the grip
as strongly as possible, so that children had to concentrate
not only on the two fingers involved but also on the strength
of the contact, for about 5 sec for each grip closure. This exer-
cise was performed with both hands at the same time.
2.4.2. G2: story-comprehension intervention
The second group, G2, were trained in story comprehension. A
researcher read a story to the children and then asked them
questions about its content. Finally they were asked to pro-
duce possible endings to the story.
2.5. Intervention procedure
Both interventions were run in small groups of about five chil-
dren, and conducted by the same student researcher, who had
also participated in the baseline evaluation of the children.
The second evaluation was undertaken by a different student,
who recorded the data without knowing the children.
There were two half-hourly intervention sessions each
week for 8 weeks. Both types of training (finger intervention
and story comprehension) were delivered in a dedicated
room in each school, during class time.
3. Results
All the analyses were run after excluding results that differed
from the mean of the group by more than two standard devi-
ations. Some children were absent for some parts of the
testing and a technical problem prevented the data for one
child on two computerised tasks being recorded.1
3.1. Pre-training assessment
Results from the pre-training baseline were analysed by
means of one-way analyses of variances (ANOVAs) with group
(G1: finger training, G2: story comprehension training, and G3:
control group) as the between-subjects factor. These analyses
had two aims: (1) to check that the two intervention groups, G1
and G2, were comparable before the intervention; and (2), to
examine whether the children with poor finger gnosis had
lower numerical skills than those with good finger gnosis.
The ANOVAs were followed by post hoc comparisons between
G1 and G2, and between G1–G2 together and G3.
The ANOVA on the finger gnosis score was significant
(F(2,43) ¼ 34.53; p < .0001). The post hoc t-test confirmed that
G1 and G2 performed similarly (t(30) < 1), and that both these
groups performed less well than G3 (t(44) ¼ 8.39; p < .0001;
see Table 1 for the means of all the groups).
The three groups performed similarly both on drawing
a man (F(2,44) < 1) and drawing a hand (F(2,44) < 1).
The ANOVA on the ‘‘how many fingers?’’ score was mar-
ginally significant (F(2,42) ¼ 2.94; p ¼ .064). Post hoc compari-
sons indicated that G1 scored slightly better than G2
(t(29) ¼ 1.87; p ¼ .071), and both groups were somewhat more
accurate than G3 (t(43) ¼ 1.75; p ¼ .086). Median reaction times
were computed for each participant for pictures showing
small (1–5) and large (6–10) numbers of fingers in either a ca-
nonical or a non-canonical hand shape. A repeated-measures
ANOVA was calculated with group as a between-subjects fac-
tor, and size (small or large) and type of hand shape as
within-subjects factors. This analysis showed highly signifi-
cant main effects of size (F(1,40) ¼ 253.53; p < .0001) and of
hand shape (F(1,40) ¼ 77.71; p < .0001) as well as a significant
1
During the data trimming, we removed, from the pre-training
measures, the data of one child in G1 for the drawing task, two
children of G1 and of G2 for the counting task and one child of
G1 for the magnitude comparison task. For the post-training mea-
sures, there were two outliers in G1 on the finger gnosis task; one
in G3 on the draw a man test, two in each of G1 and G2 on the
‘‘how many fingers?’’ task, two in G2 and one in G3 on the simple
counting task, one in G1 and two in G3 on counting with limits,
one in G1 and one in G3 on magnitude comparison, two in G1
on subitizing and two in G1 on additions. There were also some
children whose data could not be recorded because they were ab-
sent at the time of testing. For the pre-training testing there were
two absences in G1 for finger gnosis, two in G2 and two in G3 for
the counting tasks, two in G1, three in G2 and one in G3 for mag-
nitude comparison and three in G1, three in G2 and one in G3 for
the ordinality judgement. In the post-training evaluation there
was one absence in G1 for the finger gnosis, two in G1 and one
in G2 for the ‘‘how many fingers?’’ task, two in G1, two in G2
and one in G3 for the magnitude comparison, and two in G1,
one in G2 and one in G3 for the ordinality judgement. Finally,
there were some data which could not be encoded in the
pre-training assessment because there were technical problems
with their registration in the computer. This affected two partic-
ipants in G2 for the finger gnosis task and the ‘‘how many fin-
gers?’’ task, and two in G1 on the magnitude comparison. The
resulting empty cells account for the different degrees in freedom
in Section 3.
 Author's personal copy

cortex 44 (2008) 368–375 373

Table 1 – Means and standard deviations for the three groups before and after training
Data before training Data after training Maximum
possible score
G1 G2 G3 G1 G2 G3

Total finger gnosis 13.36 (2.09) 13.12 (1.86) 18.29 (1.13) 16.57 (1.01) 13.06 (2.94) 14.79 (2.25) 20
Draw a hand score 9.00 (2.44) 8.94 (2.16) 8.29 (3.81) 10.81 (1.87) 9.35 (2.09) 9.46 (2.14) 14
Draw a man score 15.33 (4.83) 16.17 (2.60) 17.00 (5.58) 16.81 (3.67) 19.41 (3.77) 18.57 (4.29) 35
‘‘How many fingers?’’ RTs 3426 (957) 3615 (1089) 3176 (1068) 1974 (299) 2374 (430) 2342 (738) –
‘‘How many fingers?’’ score 36.50 (1.96) 34.77 (2.97) 34.07 (3.47) 36.62 (1.12) 34.87 (3.18) 35.57 (1.95) 38
Counting score 34.64 (11.86) 40.36 (11.77) 39.23 (12.47) 63.31 (22.67) 68.40 (19.71) 71.23 (21.70) 100
Counting with limits score 5.25 (2.43) 4.88 (2.05) 6.50 (1.22) 6.47 (1.35) 6.53 (1.58) 5.57 (1.91) 9
Magnitude comparison score 45.00 (2.03) 43.08 (2.69) 41.85 (5.39) 35.21 (11.59) 31.80 (10.42) 32.23 (10.99) 48
Magnitude comparison RTs 1810 (379) 1830 (266) 1713 (475) 1251 (236) 1351 (313) 1271 (260) –
Judgement of ordinality score 43.23 (5.93) 42.50 (5.03) 42.83 (3.90) 45.50 (2.17) 43.36 (3.67) 45.31 (2.39) 48
Judgement of ordinality RTs 2121 (648) 2283 (507) 2015 (695) 1460 (365) 1488 (244) 1434 (331) –
Enumeration score 4.07 (1.53) 4.00 (1.36) 5.17 (1.33) 4.25 (1.52) 4.12 (1.65) 4.93 (1.07) 6
Subitizing score 14.13 (1.36) 14.13 (1.08) 21.43 (2.73) 22.64 (1.44) 20.00 (2.57) 22.07 (2.23) 25
Calculation score 9.06 (5.31) 9.12 (6.47) 9.36 (6.10) 15.27 (3.99) 12.82 (4.81) 13.86 (3.97) 19

N.B.: standard deviations are given in brackets. Reaction times are measured in msec.

interaction between these factors (F(1,40) ¼ 20.40; p < .0001).
Children answered faster when they were presented with small
numbers of fingers than with large numbers, and they
responded faster to canonical hand shapes than to non-
canonical ones. The size effect was larger for non-canonical
hand shapes (difference of 2914 msec) than for canonical
hand shapes (1737 msec). The group had no effect (F(2,40) < 1)
and did not enter into any significant interaction (all Fs < 1).
In the numerical testing, there were no significant group
effects for the counting task involving the extension of the
verbal numerical chain (F(2,41) ¼ 1.79; p ¼ n.s.). However,
a marginally significant effect of the group was obtained
(F(2,44) ¼ 2.68; p ¼ .080) on the counting with limits task. Post
hoc t-tests showed no differences between G1 and G2
(t(31) < 1) but these two groups performed less well than G3
(t(41.64) ¼ 2.84; p ¼ .007).2
There was no significant effect of group (F(2,38) < 1) on accu-
racy on the magnitude comparison task. The median RTs were
entered into a mixed ANOVA with group as a between-subjects
factor, and size of the digits and distance between them as
within-subjects factors. This analysis revealed the classical
effects of distance (F(1,35) ¼ 45.79; p < .0001) and size
(F(1,35) ¼ 29.63; p < .0001) with no significant interaction be-
tween them (F(1,35) < 1). The group effect was not significant
(F(2,35) < 1) and did not interact with the other factors (all Fs < 1).
The accuracy of the ordinality judgement did not differ
among the three groups (F(2,37) < 1). Analysis of the RTs
with group as a between-subjects factor, and size of the digits
and distance between them as within-subjects factors
revealed a distance (F(1,37) ¼25.90; p < .0001) and a size effect
(F(1,37) ¼ 5.87; p ¼ .002), as well as a significant interaction be-
tween these two factors (F(1,37) ¼ 6.10; p ¼ .018) which indi-
cated a smaller distance effect for small numbers (difference
of 216 msec) than for large ones (difference of 463 msec). The
group effect was not significant (F(2,37) < 1) and did not enter
into any significant interactions (all Fs < 1).
2
These degrees of freedom were corrected because Levene’s
test indicated that the variances were not equal.
Scores on the subitizing task did not differ significantly be-
tween groups (F(2,44) < 1). The enumeration task showed
a marginally significant effect of group (F(2,41) ¼ 3.01;
p ¼ .060). Post hoc t-tests showed that G1 and G2 were similar
(t(30) < 1), but both groups performed worse than G3
(t(42) ¼ 2.45; p ¼ .018). No main effect of the group was found
for the additions (F(2,44) < 1).
In summary, the main differences between the groups are
that G1 and G2 performed less well than G3 on the finger gno-
sis test as well as on the two numerical tasks: counting with
limits and enumeration.
3.2. Post-training assessment
Post-training outcomes were analysed by means of one-way
ANOVAs with group as the between-subjects factor. The
main goal of this analysis was to examine whether the fin-
ger-differentiation intervention led to better finger gnosis
and better numerical performance in G1 than the story-com-
prehension intervention in G2. Therefore, post hoc t-tests
comparing G1 and G2 were also calculated.
The ANOVA for the finger gnosis score revealed a signifi-
cant group effect (F(2,43) ¼ 7.99; p ¼ .001). t-Tests indicated
better performance for G1 than for G2 (t(22.98) ¼ 4.12;
p < .0001). G1 also performed significantly better than G3
(t(20.90) ¼ 2.22; p ¼ .037), although G2 still performed worse
than G3 (t(29) ¼ 1.79; p ¼ .083). The means of all the groups
are presented in Table 1.
No main effects were found in the one-way ANOVA for the
‘‘draw a man’’ test (F(2,44) ¼ 1.88; p ¼ n.s.). However the
ANOVA on the ‘‘draw a hand’’ task was marginally significant
(F(2,43) ¼ 2.53; p ¼ .091). Post hoc t-test measures revealed that
G1 had a significantly better score than G2 (t(31) ¼ 2.11;
p ¼ .043). G1 also performed marginally better than G3
(t(27) ¼ 1.81; p ¼ .081), while the scores of G2 and G3 were sta-
tistically similar (t(29) < 1).
The one-way ANOVA for the score of the ‘‘how many fin-
gers?’’ task with group as between-subjects factor revealed
no significant group differences (F(2,39) ¼ 2.04; n.s.). A mixed
 Author's personal copy
374 cortex 44 (2008) 368–375
ANOVA (between-subjects factor: group; within-subjects fac-
tors: canonical or non-canonical hand shape, and size (small
or large) of the quantities) was calculated on the median
RTs. Again, there were significant effects of size
(F(1,39) ¼ 326.73; p < .0001) and hand shape (F(1,39) ¼ 147.65;
p < .0001), and a significant interaction between size and
hand shape (F(1,39) ¼ 112.52; p < .0001). However the group ef-
fect was also now significant (F(2,39) ¼ 3.75; p ¼ .032), and it
interacted significantly with size (F(2,39) ¼ 4.27; p ¼ .021).
Fig. 2 shows that the children in G1 were faster than those
in G2, and the difference between the two groups was greater
when a large number of fingers were presented (difference of
786 msec; t(27) ¼ 3.163, p ¼ .004) than when a small number
of fingers were shown (difference of 271 msec; t(27) ¼ 2.328,
p ¼ .028). The other interactions with group were not signifi-
cant (hand shape  group: F(2,39) < 1, hand shape  si-
ze  group, F(2,39) ¼ 2.14; p ¼ n.s.).
There was no group effect for the simple counting task
(F(2,41) < 1) or for the counting with limits (F(2,44) ¼ 1.01;
p ¼ n.s.).
The one-way ANOVA on the accuracy of the magnitude
comparison with group as the between-subjects factor was
not significant (F(2,39) < 1). A mixed ANOVA was performed
on the RTs with group as the between-subjects factor and
the size of the digits and distance between them as
within-subjects. As in the pre-training measure, there were
significant distance (F(1,37) ¼ 16.96; p < .0001) and size
(F(1,37) ¼ 23.20; p < .0001) effects, but no interaction between
these two factors (F(1,37) < 1). There was no evidence of
a group effect (F(2,37) < 1), and the group did not interact
with either distance or size (all Fs < 1).
The groups’ scores on the ordinality judgement differed
significantly (F(2,39) ¼ 3.30; p ¼ .047). Post hoc comparisons
showed that children in G2 tended to score worse than those
in G1 (t(27) ¼ 2.02; p ¼ .053). G2 also scored marginally less
well than G3 (t(26) ¼ 1.82; p ¼ .080), but there were no signif-
icant differences between G1 and G3 (t(25) < 1). A mixed
ANOVA was calculated for the RTs of the judgement of ordi-
nality, with group as the between-subjects factor and the
digits and distance between them as within-subjects factors.
Analyses revealed significant distance (F(1,37) ¼ 19.25;
p < .0001) and size effects (F(1,37) ¼ 28.85; p < .0001), which
did not interact with one another (F(1,37) ¼ 1.42; p ¼ n.s.).
Fig. 2 – Interaction between the size (small of large) of the
quantities shown and the groups in the ‘‘how many
fingers?’’ task.
The group effect (F(2,37) < 1) was not significant and did not
interact with the other factors (all Fs < 1).
The one-way ANOVA for the subitizing task was significant
(F(2,43) ¼ 3.35; p ¼ .044). Post hoc t-tests indicated that G1
scored significantly better than G2 (t(30) ¼ 3.59; p ¼ .046) but
similarly to G3 (t(27) < 1), while G2 performed worse than G3
(t(29) ¼ 2.36; p ¼ .025).
The one-way ANOVA showed no significant differences be-
tween the groups on the enumeration task (F(2,44) ¼ 1.32;
p ¼ .277).
Finally, there were no significant post-training group ef-
fects (F(2,43) ¼ 1.28; p ¼ n.s.) on the additions.
4. Discussion and conclusions
In this study, we opted for an intervention method and rea-
soned as follows: if finger gnosis is functionally related to nu-
merical skills development, then improving it should lead to
positive consequences for number skills as well. With that
aim, we selected two groups of children with poor finger gno-
sis and provided a finger-differentiation intervention to the
first one and a story-comprehension intervention to the other
one. If good finger gnosis contributes to the development of
numerical skills then training in that skill might also have
positive consequences for numerical skills.
As expected, our results showed a link between finger gno-
sis and numerical skills. Before any intervention, children
with good finger gnosis outperformed the two groups with
poor finger gnosis in two numerical tasks, one tapping the
level of elaboration of the verbal numerical chain and the
other involving counting collections. More importantly, mea-
sures taken after the intervention indicated that our finger-
differentiation training was effective. The children who had
received that intervention not only had better finger gnosis
than the children who had received the control-intervention,
but also better scores than the group who had good finger gno-
sis to start with. This improvement of the body schema for
hands was also observed in the ‘‘draw a hand’’ task where,
once again, children in the finger-intervention group outper-
formed those in the control-intervention group. This could in-
dicate that the finger intervention has improved the internal
representation of the fingers and hands of the participants,
while other representations, such as that of the whole body,
remained stable.
The finger intervention also had an impact on three numer-
ical tasks. First, children in the finger-intervention group were
faster than children in the control-intervention group in saying
how many fingers were raised in pictures, and this effect was
stronger the more fingers were raised. Second, children who fol-
lowed the story-comprehension training scored worse not only
than the control group, but also than the finger-training group.
Finally, children in the finger-intervention group scored better
than those in the control-training group in the subitizing task.
In summary, this study showed that an 8-week training in
finger differentiation led to improved finger gnosis in young
children as well as to better performance in three basic nu-
merical skills: subitizing, counting raised fingers, and ordinal-
ity judgement. The difference between the two intervention
groups is not obvious in all the numerical tasks, probably
 Author's personal copy
cortex 44 (2008) 368–375
partly due to the small size of the sample or to the relatively
short duration of the intervention. Yet, these results are the
first to clearly support the hypothesis of a functional link be-
tween finger gnosis and numerical skill development.
In another study, Gracia-Bafalluy et al. (submitted for pub-
lication) have shown that children who have been playing
a musical instrument which requires good finger differentia-
tion (Costa-Giomi, 2005; Meister et al., 2005), have equivalent
numerical skills to their non-musician peers after 1 year of
musical training. Yet, if the comparison is made after 3 years
of musical practice, the groups differ both in terms of finger
gnosis and numerical skills. From this, we might conclude
that very intensive finger-differentiation training is needed to
achieve major and significant differences in numerical skills.
In that sense, the results we have obtained here after only 8
weeks of training are very encouraging. A longitudinal follow-
up of these children (or of other children who have experienced
a longer finger-training period) would certainly be valuable.
This work could lead to finger training being included in
the rehabilitation of numerical skills or in work to improve nu-
merical development in children. Thus, new possibilities of
finger-intervention strategies are opened up by the possibili-
ties suggested by the encouraging results of this intervention
programme.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the professionals and the children
from the Martin V (Louvain-la-Neuve), Saint Etienne (Court
St Etienne) et Saint Pie X (Ottignies) schools for their participation.
This project was supported by the grant CEE/Marie Curie
No. MRTN-CT-2003-504927, an FRSM fund (fund for scientific
and medical research, convention 3.4607.04 F) and a concerted
research action from the French community of Belgium (ARC
05/10-327).
Marie-Pascale Noël was also supported by the National
Research Fund of Belgium.
references
Alibali MW and DiRusso AA. The function of gesture in learning to
count: more than keeping track. Cognitive Development, 14:
37–55, 1999.
Andres M, Davare M, Pesenti M, Olivier E, and Seron X. Number
magnitude and grip aperture interaction. Neuroreport, 22:
2773–2777, 2004.
Andres M, Ostry DJ, Nicol F, and Paus T. Time course of number
magnitude interference during grasping. Cortex, 44: 414–419,
2008.
Benton AL. The fiction of the ‘‘Gerstmann syndrome’’. Journal of
Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 24: 176–181, 1961.
Benton AL. Reflections on the Gerstmann syndrome. Brain and
Language, 4: 45–62, 1977.
Brissiaud R. Comment les Enfants Apprennent à Calculer. Paris: Retz,
2003.
Butterworth B. The Mathematical Brain. London: Macmillan, 1999.
Costa-Giomi E. Does music instruction improve fine motor
abilities? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060:
262–264, 2005.
375
Dehaene S, Piazza M, Pinel P, and Cohen L. Three parietal circuits for
number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20: 487–506, 2003.
DiLuca S, Grana A, Semenza C, Seron X, and Pesenti M. Finger-
digit compatibility in Arabic numeral processing. The Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59: 1648–1663, 2006.
Fayol M, Barrouillet P, and Marinthe C. Predicting arithmetical
achievement from neuropsychological performance:
a longitudinal study. Cognition, 68: 63–70, 1998.
Fischer MH. Finger counting habits modulate spatial-numerical
associations. Cortex, 44: 386–392, 2008.
Fuson KC. Children’s Counting and Concepts of Number. New York:
Springer-Verlag, 1988.
Gallistel CR and Gelman R. Preverbal and verbal counting and
computation. Cognition, 44: 43–74, 1992.
Geary DC. Les troubles d’apprentissage en arithmétique: Rôle de
la mémoire de travail et des connaissances conceptuelles. In
Noël MP (Ed), La Dyscalculie: Trouble du Développement
Numérique de l’Enfant. Marseille, France: SOLAL, 2005: 169–191.
Gelman R and Gallistel CR. The Child’s Understanding of Number.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.
Gerstmann J. Fingeragnosie und isolerte Agraphie: ein neues
Syndrom. Zeitschrist für die Gesamte Neurologie und Psychiatrie,
108: 152–177, 1927.
Gerstmann J. Syndrome of finger agnosia, disorientation for right
and left, agraphia and dyscalculia. Archives of Neurology and
Psychiatry, 44: 398–408, 1940.
Goodenough F and Pasquasy R. Le test du dessin d’un bonhomme.
Bruxelles: Editest, 1967.
Grigsby JP, Kemper MB, and Hagerman RJ. Developmental
Gerstmann syndrome without aphasia in fragile  syndrome.
Neuropsychologia, 25: 881–891, 1987.
Marinthe C, Fayol M, and Barrouillet P. Gnosies digitales et
développement des performances arithmétiques. In Van
Hout A, Meljac C, and Fischer JP (Eds), Troubles du Calcul et
Dyscalculies chez l’Enfant. Paris: Masson, 2001: 239–254.
Mayer E, Martory MD, Pegna AJ, Landis T, Delavelle J, and
Annoni JM. A pure case of Gerstmann syndrome with
a subangular lesion. Brain, 122: 1107–1120, 1999.
Meister I, Krings T, Foltys H, Boroojerdi B, Müller M, Töpper R, and
Thron A. Effects of long-term practice and task complexity in
musicians and non-musicians performing simple and
complex motor tasks: implications for cortical motor
organization. Human Brain Mapping, 25: 345–352, 2005.
Noël MP. Finger gnosia: a predictor of numerical abilities in
children? Child Neuropsychology, 11: 413–430, 2005.
Rusconi E, Walsh V, and Butterworth B. Dexterity with
numbers: rTMS over left angular gyrus disrupts finger gnosis
and number processing. Neuropsychologia, 43: 1609–1624,
2005.
Simon O, Mangin JF, Cohen L, LeBihan D, and Dehaene S.
Topographical layout of hand, eye, calculation, and language-
related areas in the human parietal lobe. Neuron, 33: 475–487,
2002.
Sato M and Lalain M. On the relationship between handedness
and hand-digit mapping in finger counting. Cortex, 44: 393–399,
2008.
Strub R and Geschwind N. Gerstmann syndrome without aphasia.
Cortex, 10: 378–387, 1974.
Suresh PA and Sebastian S. Developmental Gerstmann
syndrome: a distinct clinical entity of learning disabilities.
Pediatric Neurology, 22: 267–278, 2000.
Turconi E, Campbell JID, and Seron X. Numerical order and quantity
processing in number comparison. Cognition, 98: 273–285, 2006.
Zago L and Pesenti M. Neuroimagerie cognitive des activités
numériques. In Houdé O, Mazoyer B, and Tzourio-Mazoyer N
(Eds), Cerveau et Psychologie: Introduction à l’Imagerie Cérébrale
Anatomique et Fonctionnelle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France, 2002.