Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-7262s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T15:36:12.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why try saving the ANS? An alternative proposal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2017

Titia Gebuis ,
Roi Cohen Kadosh  and
Wim Gevers
Titia Gebuis
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular and Cellular Neurobiology, Center for Neurogenomics and Cognitive Research (CNCR), VU University Amsterdam, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands T.Gebuis@vu.nl https://mcn.cncr.nl/people/gebuis_t.
Roi Cohen Kadosh
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3UD, United Kingdom Roi.CohenKadosh@psy.ox.ac.uk https://www.psy.ox.ac.uk/research/cohen-kadosh-laboratory
Wim Gevers
Affiliation:
Center for Research in Cognition and Neurosciences (CRCN), Université Libre de Bruxelles and UNI–ULB Neurosciences Institute, CP122, 1050 Brussels, Belgium Wim.Gevers@ulb.ac.be http://crcn.ulb.ac.be/lab/ab&c/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leibovich et al. propose that continuous magnitudes and a number sense are used holistically to judge numerosity. We point out that their proposal is incomplete and implausible: incomplete, as it does not explain how continuous magnitudes are calculated; implausible, as it cannot explain performance in estimation tasks. We propose that we do not possess a number sense. Instead, we assume that numerosity judgments are accomplished by weighing the different continuous magnitudes constituting numerosity.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e171
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

Allik, J. & Tuulmets, T. (1991) Occupancy model of perceived numerosity. Perception & Psychophysics 49:303–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehaene, S. (2003) The neural basis of the Weber–Fechner law: A logarithmic mental number line. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(4):145–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gebuis, T. & Reynvoet, B. (2012c) The role of visual information in numerosity estimation. PLoS ONE 7(5):e37426. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gevers, W., Cohen Kadosh, R. & Gebuis, T. (2016) The sensory integration theory: An alternative to the approximate number system. In: Continuous issues in numerical cognition, ed. Henik, A., pp. 405–18. Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-801637-4.00018-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izard, V. & Dehaene, S. (2008) Calibrating the mental number line. Cognition 106(3):1221–47. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, L. E. (1982) Single judgments of numerosity. Perception & Psychophysics 31(2):175–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mix, K. S., Huttenlocher, J. & Levine, S. C. (2002a) Multiple cues for quantification in infancy: Is number one of them? Psychological Bulletin 128(2):278–94. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.2.278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed