No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Numerosity, area-osity, object-osity? Oh my
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 December 2021
Abstract
There is ongoing debate about whether number is perceived directly. Clarke and Beck suggest that what plagues this debate is a lack of shared understanding about what it means to perceive number in the first place. I agree. I argue that the perception of number is held to a different standard than, say, the perception of objecthood; considering this, I explore what it might mean for the number system to represent rational numbers.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Egly, R., Driver, J., & Rafal, R. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 161–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, J. (2007). Formation of visual “objects” in the early computation of spatial relations. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 816–827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franconeri, S. L., Bemis, D. K., & Alvarez, G. A. (2009). Number estimation relies on a set of segmented objects. Cognition, 113, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leibovich, T., Katzin, N., Harel, M., & Henik, A. (2017). From “sense of number” to “sense of magnitude”: The role of continuous magnitudes in numerical cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yousif, S. R., & Keil, F. C. (2020). Area, not number, dominates estimates of visual quantities. Scientific Reports, 10, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yousif, S. R., & Scholl, B. J. (2019). The one-is-more illusion: Sets of discrete objects appear less extended than equivalent continuous entities in both space and time. Cognition, 185, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, D., Xiao, X., Bemis, D. K., & Franconeri, S. L. (2019). Similarity grouping as feature-based selection. Psychological Science, 30, 376–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Target article
The number sense represents (rational) numbers
Related commentaries (26)
A rational explanation for links between the ANS and math
Constructing rationals through conjoint measurement of numerator and denominator as approximate integer magnitudes in tradeoff relations
Contents of the approximate number system
Distinguishing the specific from the recognitional and the canonical, and the nature of ratios
Non-symbolic and symbolic number and the approximate number system
Not so rational: A more natural way to understand the ANS
Numbers in action
Numerical cognition needs more and better distinctions, not fewer
Numerical cognition: Unitary or diversified system(s)?
Numerosities are not ersatz numbers
Numerosity, area-osity, object-osity? Oh my
Perceived number is not abstract
Positing numerosities may be metaphysically extravagant; positing representation of numerosities is not
Ratio-based perceptual foundations for rational numbers, and perhaps whole numbers, too?
Real models: The limits of behavioural evidence for understanding the ANS
Representation of pure magnitudes in ANS
Second-order characteristics don't favor a number-representing ANS
Sizes, ratios, approximations: On what and how the ANS represents
The approximate number system represents magnitude and precision
The approximate number system represents rational numbers: The special case of an empty set
The number sense does not represent numbers, but cardinality comparisons
The number sense represents multitudes and magnitudes
The perception of quantity ain't number: Missing the primacy of symbolic reference
Unwarranted philosophical assumptions in research on ANS
Weighted numbers
What are we doing when we perceive numbers?
Author response
Numbers, numerosities, and new directions