Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T19:02:54.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Numerical cognition needs more and better distinctions, not fewer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2021

Hilary Barth Open the ORCID record for Hilary Barth [Opens in a new window]  and
Anna Shusterman
Hilary Barth
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT06459, USA. hbarth@wesleyan.edu ashusterman@wesleyan.edu http://hbarth.faculty.wesleyan.edu http://ashusterman.faculty.wesleyan.edu
Anna Shusterman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT06459, USA. hbarth@wesleyan.edu ashusterman@wesleyan.edu http://hbarth.faculty.wesleyan.edu http://ashusterman.faculty.wesleyan.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We agree that the approximate number system (ANS) truly represents number. We endorse the authors' conclusions on the arguments from confounds, congruency, and imprecision, although we disagree with many claims along the way. Here, we discuss some complications with the meanings that undergird theories in numerical cognition, and with the language we use to communicate those theories.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 44 , 2021 , e181
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

Aulet, L., & Lourenco, S. (2021). The relative salience of numerical and non-numerical dimensions shifts over development: A re-analysis of Tomlinson, DeWind, and Brannon (2020). Cognition, 210, 104610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, H. (2008). Judgments of discrete and continuous quantity: An illusory Stroop effect. Cognition 109:251–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burge, T. (2010). The origins of objectivity. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367638.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, S., & Barner, D. (2019). Ontogenetic origins of human integer representations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 823–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carey, S., Shusterman, A., Haward, P., & Distefano, R. (2017). Do analog number representations underlie the meanings of young children's verbal numerals? Cognition 168:243–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eronen, M. I., & Bringmann, L. F. (2021). The theory crisis in psychology: How to move forward. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurewitz, F., Gelman, R., & Schnitzer, B. (2006). Sometimes area counts more than number. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:19599–19604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rousselle, L., & Noël, M. (2008). The development of automatic numerosity processing in preschoolers: Evidence for numerosity-perceptual interference. Developmental Psychology 44:544–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savelkouls, S., & Cordes, S. (2020). The impact of set size on cumulative area judgments. Acta Psychologica 210:103163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yousif, S. R., & Keil, F. C. (2020). Area, not number, dominates estimates of visual quantities. Scientific Reports 10:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar