Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Spatial-numerical associations: Shared symbolic and non-symbolic numerical representations
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
Number of Authors: 22019 (English)In: Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, ISSN 1747-0218, E-ISSN 1747-0226, Vol. 72, no 10, p. 2423-2436Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

During the last decades, there have been a large number of studies into the number-related abilities of humans. As a result, we know that humans and non-human animals have a system known as the approximate number system that allows them to distinguish between collections based on their number of items, separately from any counting procedures. Dehaene and others have argued for a model on which this system uses representations for numbers that are spatial in nature and are shared by our symbolic and non-symbolic processing of numbers. However, there is a conflicting theoretical perspective in which there are no representations of numbers underlying the approximate number system, but only quantity-related representations. This perspective would then suggest that there are no shared representations between symbolic and non-symbolic processing. We review the evidence on spatial biases resulting from the activation of numerical representations, for both non-symbolic and symbolic tests. These biases may help decide between the theoretical differences; shared representations are expected to lead to similar biases regardless of the format, whereas different representations more naturally explain differences in biases, and thus behaviour. The evidence is not yet decisive, as the behavioural evidence is split: we expect bisection tasks to eventually favour shared representations, whereas studies on the spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect currently favour different representations. We discuss how this impasse may be resolved, in particular, by combining these behavioural studies with relevant neuroimaging data. If this approach is carried forward, then it may help decide which of these two theoretical perspectives on number representations is correct.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. Vol. 72, no 10, p. 2423-2436
Keywords [en]
Numerosity, representations, triple-code model, SNARC effect, spatial-numerical associations
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-175042DOI: 10.1177/1747021819844503ISI: 000483811400006PubMedID: 30931820OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-175042DiVA, id: diva2:1366457
Available from: 2019-10-29 Created: 2019-10-29 Last updated: 2019-10-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Buijsman, StefanTirado, Carlos
By organisation
Department of Psychology
In the same journal
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Psychology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 18 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf