Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-vdhp9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T19:16:58.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A “sense of magnitude” requires a new alternative for learning numerical symbols

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2017

Delphine Sasanguie  and
Bert Reynvoet
Delphine Sasanguie
Affiliation:
Brain and Cognition Research Unit, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium Delphine.Sasanguie@kuleuven.be Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven Kulak, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium Bert.Reynvoet@kuleuven.be http://www.numcoglableuven.be
Bert Reynvoet
Affiliation:
Brain and Cognition Research Unit, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium Delphine.Sasanguie@kuleuven.be Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven Kulak, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium Bert.Reynvoet@kuleuven.be http://www.numcoglableuven.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leibovich et al. proposed that the processing of numerosities is based primarily on a “sense of magnitude.” The consequences of this proposal for how numerical symbols acquire their meaning are, however, neglected. We argue that symbols cannot be learned by associating them with a system that is not yet able to derive discrete numbers accurately because of immature cognitive control.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e188
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, P. (2002) Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology 8(2):71–82.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (2009) Where our number concepts come from. Journal of Philosophy 106:220–54.Google Scholar
Davidson, K., Eng, K. & Barner, D. (2012) Does learning to count involve a semantic induction? Cognition 123:162–73.Google Scholar
Defever, E., Reynvoet, B. & Gebuis, T. (2013) Task and age dependent effects of visual stimulus properties on children's explicit numerosity judgments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 116:216–33.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S. (2001) Précis of the number sense. Mind and Language 16:16–36.Google Scholar
Gebuis, T., Cohen Kadosh, R. & Gevers, W. (2016) Sensory-integration system rather than approximate number system underlies numerosity processing: A critical review. Acta Psychologica 171:17–35.Google Scholar
Gebuis, T. & Reynvoet, B. (2012b) The interplay between nonsymbolic number and its continuous visual properties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141(4):642–48. doi: 10.1037/a0026218.Google Scholar
Halberda, J., Mazzocco, M. M. & Feigenson, L. (2008) Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature 455(7213):665–68. doi: 10.1038/nature07246.Google Scholar
Krajcsi, A., Lengyel, G. & Kojouharova, P. (2016) The source of the symbolic numerical distance and size effects. Frontiers in Psychology 7:1795. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynvoet, B. & Sasanguie, D. (2016) The symbol grounding problem revisited: A thorough evaluation of the ANS mapping account and the proposal of an alternative account based on symbol–symbol associations. Frontiers in Psychology 7:1581. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01581.Google Scholar
Sasanguie, D., De Smedt, B., Defever, E. & Reynvoet, B. (2012) Association between basic numerical abilities and mathematics achievement. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 30:344–57.Google Scholar
Sasanguie, D., De Smedt, B. & Reynvoet, B. (2017) Evidence for distinct magnitude systems for symbolic and non-symbolic number. Psychological Research 81(1):231–42. doi: 10.1007/s00426-015-0734-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smets, K., Sasanguie, D., Szücs, D. & Reynvoet, B. (2015) The effect of different methods to construct non-symbolic stimuli in numerosity estimation and comparison. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 27(3):310–25. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2014.996568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szücs, D., Nobes, A., Devine, A., Gabriel, F. C. & Gebuis, T. (2013) Visual stimulus parameters seriously compromise the measurement of approximate number system acuity and comparative effects between adults and children. Frontiers in Psychology 4:444. doi:10.3389/fpsyg. 2013.00444.Google Scholar