Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T10:58:45.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second-order characteristics don't favor a number-representing ANS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2021

Stefan Buijsman Open the ORCID record for Stefan Buijsman [Opens in a new window]
Stefan Buijsman*
Affiliation:
Institute for Futures Studies, Holländargatan 13, 101 31Stockholm, Sweden Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, TU Delft, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX, Delft, The Netherlands. s.n.r.buijsman@tudelft.nlhttps://www.tudelft.nl/tbm/over-de-faculteit/afdelingen/values-technology-and-innovation/people/postdocs/dr-snr-stefan-buijsman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Clarke and Beck argue that the ANS doesn't represent non-numerical magnitudes because of its second-order character. A sensory integration mechanism can explain this character as well, provided the dumbbell studies involve interference from systems that segment by objects such as the Object Tracking System. Although currently equal hypotheses, I point to several ways the two can be distinguished.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 44 , 2021 , e184
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

Buijsman, S. (2021). The representations of the approximate number system. Philosophical Psychology, 34(2), 300–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buijsman, S., & Tirado, C. (2019). Spatial-numerical associations: Shared symbolic and non-symbolic numerical representations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(10), 2423–2436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burge, T. (2010). The origins of objectivity. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 307–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franconeri, S. L., Bemis, D. K., & Alvarez, G. A. (2009). Number estimation relies on a set of segmented objects. Cognition, 113(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
He, L., Zhang, J., Zhou, T., & Chen, L. (2009). Connectedness affects dot numerosity judgment: Implications for configural processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 509–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunez, R. (2017). Is there really an evolved capacity for number? Trends in Cognitive Science, 21(6), 409–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plotnik, J. M., Brubaker, D. L., Dale, R., Tiller, L. N., Mumby, H. S., & Clayton, N. S. (2019). Elephants have a nose for quantity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(25), 12566–12571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed