Children's understanding of number is similar to adults' and rats': numerical estimation by 5–7-year-olds

Huntley-Fenner, Gavin

doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00122-0

Cited by 87 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A preverbal counting system could not have produced the patterns of RT we observed in Experiment 4; the fact that RT did not increase with set size shows that these sets were enumerated by a noniterative process. Recent studies suggest that when young children estimate the numerosities of briefly presented groups of objects, they too produce patterns of performance consistent with the operation of non-iterative enumeration processes (Huntley-Fenner, 2001;Huntley-Fenner & Cannon, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The construction of large number representations in adults

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The construction of large number representations in adults

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, the question of the nature of the ontogenetic sources of the counting principles is not yet resolved, for no study has investigated the nature of the mappings in children who have just acquired the counting principles. To be sure, some studies did investigate the mappings in children who knew the counting principles (Duncan & McFarland, 1980;Huntley-Fenner, 2001;Lipton & Spelke, 2005;Temple & Posner, 1988;Sekuler & Mierkiewicz, 1977) but only did so with children who were at least five years old -i.e. a full 12 to 18 months older than the age at which most children acquire the counting principles.…”

Section: The Nature Of the Mappings That Support The Acquisition Of Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

One, two, three, four, nothing more: An investigation of the conceptual sources of the verbal counting principles

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The quantity discriminations made by many species are restricted in their accuracy on the basis of the ratio between those sets (e.g., Barth, Kanwisher, & Spelke, 2003;Beran, 2007;Beran, Taglialatela, Flemming, James, & Washburn, 2006;Brannon, Cantlon, & Terrace, 2006;Brannon & Terrace, 2000;Call, 2000;Huntley-Fenner, 2001). Comparisons with larger ratios (as determined by dividing the smaller quantity by the larger quantity) lead to lower performance levels, even when the distance between sets is constant (e.g., 8 versus 10 is more difficult than 2 versus 4).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantity representation in children and rhesus monkeys: Linear versus logarithmic scales

Beran

Johnson-Pynn

Ready

2008

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of 4-and 5-year-old children and rhesus monkeys was compared using a computerized task for quantity assessment. Participants first learned two quantity anchor values and then responded to intermediate values by classifying them as either similar to the large anchor or the small anchor. Of primary interest was an assessment of where the point of subjective equality (PSE) occurred for each species across four different sets of anchors to determine whether the PSE occurred at the arithmetic mean or the geometric mean. Both species produced PSEs that were closer to the geometric mean for three of four anchor sets. This indicates that monkeys and children access either a logarithmic scale for quantity representation or a linear scale that is subject to scalar variability, both of which are consistent with Weber's law and representation of quantity that takes the form of analog magnitudes. KeywordsQuantity Judgments; Representational Scale; Children; Monkeys; Bisection TaskThe quantity discriminations made by many species are restricted in their accuracy on the basis of the ratio between those sets (e.g., Barth, Kanwisher, & Spelke, 2003;Beran, 2007;Beran, Taglialatela, Flemming, James, & Washburn, 2006;Brannon, Cantlon, & Terrace, 2006;Brannon & Terrace, 2000;Call, 2000;Huntley-Fenner, 2001). Comparisons with larger ratios (as determined by dividing the smaller quantity by the larger quantity) lead to lower performance levels, even when the distance between sets is constant (e.g., 8 versus 10 is more difficult than 2 versus 4). This suggests that an analog magnitude system produces discriminable representations of sets, and this system is consistent with Weber's law, which states that discrimination of sets becomes more difficult for a fixed difference as the magnitude of those sets increases.Correspondence to: Michael Beran, Language Research Center, Georgia State University, University Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30303, Telephone -404-244-2469, Fax -404-244-5829, E-mail -mjberan@yahoo.com. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Evidence for discrimination performance being modulated by Weber's Law comes from differing sources. One task, used primarily with nonhuman primates, involves judgments between two sets of items (e.g., Beran, 2004;Brannon & Terrace, 2000;Call, 2000; Judge, Evans, & Vias, 2005). This task also sometimes is used with human children (e.g., Brannon & Van de Walle, 2001; Feigenson, Carey, & Hauser, 2003). The second task is the bisection task that has been used extensively with rats and pigeons (e.g., Emmerton & Renner, 2006;Fetterm...

show abstract

Children's understanding of number is similar to adults' and rats': numerical estimation by 5–7-year-olds

Cited by 87 publications

References 34 publications

The construction of large number representations in adults

The construction of large number representations in adults

One, two, three, four, nothing more: An investigation of the conceptual sources of the verbal counting principles

Quantity representation in children and rhesus monkeys: Linear versus logarithmic scales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About