Enumeration of briefly presented items by the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens)

Tomonaga, Masaki; Matsuzawa, Tetsuro

doi:10.3758/bf03192916

Cited by 81 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because we did not observe an increase of the RTs for numerosities 6 and larger, it is very likely that numerical information was extracted by parallel mechanisms (Barth et al, 2003). These findings are in line with results of other large numerosity discrimination experiments using limited sample presentation times in rhesus monkeys (Jordan & Brannon, 2006a), chimpanzees, and humans (Tomonaga & Matsuzawa, 2002;Mandler & Shebo, 1982).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Compressed Scaling of Abstract Numerosity Representations in Adult Humans and Monkeys

Merten

Nieder²

2009

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is general agreement that nonverbal animals and humans endowed with language possess an evolutionary precursor system for representing and comparing numerical values. However, whether nonverbal numerical representations in human and nonhuman primates are quantitatively similar and whether linear or logarithmic coding underlies such magnitude judgments in both species remain elusive. To resolve these issues, we tested the numerical discrimination performance of human subjects and two rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) in an identical delayed match-to-numerosity task for a broad range of numerosities from 1 to 30. The results demonstrate a noisy nonverbal estimation system obeying Weber's Law in both species. With average Weber fractions in the range of 0.51 and 0.60, nonverbal numerosity discriminations in humans and monkeys showed similar precision. Moreover, the detailed analysis of the performance distributions exhibited nonlinearly compressed numerosity representations in both primate species. However, the difference between linear and logarithmic scaling was less pronounced in humans. This may indicate a gradual transformation of a logarithmic to linear magnitude scale in human adults as the result of a cultural transformation process during the course of mathematical education.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Compressed Scaling of Abstract Numerosity Representations in Adult Humans and Monkeys

Merten

Nieder²

2009

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These experimentally-naïve capuchin monkeys demonstrated the reported pattern of results from the outset of testing, suggestive of only one system at work. This was true in Experiment 1 in terms of their accuracy in choosing the larger set and in terms of comparable response times to large-magnitude sets and small-magnitude sets (but see Tomonaga & Matsuzawa, 2002, for a different test with chimpanzees in which there was evidence of faster responding to small sets). In Experiment 2, strong ratio effects were evident (as were distance effects), but these were equivalent for the small and large quantity ranges for a few monkeys, or, in the majority of cases, monkeys showed greater discrimination performance with the larger quantity range.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) treat small and large numbers of items similarly during a relative quantity judgment task

Beran

Parrish

2015

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A key issue in understanding the evolutionary and developmental emergence of numerical cognition is to learn what mechanism(s) support perception and representation of quantitative information. Two such systems have been proposed, one for dealing with approximate representation of sets of items across an extended numerical range and another for highly precise representation of only small numbers of items. Evidence for the first system is abundant across species and in many tests with human adults and children, whereas the second system is primarily evident in research with children and in some tests with nonhuman animals. A recent paper (Choo & Franconeri, 2014) with adult humans also reported “superprecise” representation of small sets of items in comparison to large sets of items, which would provide more support for the presence of a second system in human adults. We first presented capuchin monkeys with a test similar to that of Choo and Franconeri in which small sets or large sets with the same ratios had to be discriminated. We then presented the same monkeys with an expanded range of comparisons in the small number range (all comparisons of 1 to 9 items) and the large number range (all comparisons of 10 to 90 items in 10-item increments). Capuchin monkeys showed no increased precision for small over large sets in making these discriminations in either experiment. These data indicate a difference in the performance of monkeys to that of adult humans, and specifically that monkeys do not show improved discrimination performance for small sets relative to large sets when the relative numerical differences are held constant.

show abstract

“…Regarding non-human primates, chimpanzees have been shown to increase their reaction times to estimate the number of dots in a large number range but not in a small number range [27], but another study combining the data from four great apes found that numerical ratio was the best performance predictor in the range 0–6 [28]. In support of two-system hypothesis, rhesus monkeys successfully selected the greater group of apple slices with comparison of 1 vs. 2, 2 vs. 3 and 3 vs. 4 [29] while they discriminated between 4 and 8 lemons (1∶2 numerical ratio) but not between 4 and 6 (2∶3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for Two Numerical Systems That Are Similar in Humans and Guppies

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHumans and non-human animals share an approximate non-verbal system for representing and comparing numerosities that has no upper limit and for which accuracy is dependent on the numerical ratio. Current evidence indicates that the mechanism for keeping track of individual objects can also be used for numerical purposes; if so, its accuracy will be independent of numerical ratio, but its capacity is limited to the number of items that can be tracked, about four. There is, however, growing controversy as to whether two separate number systems are present in other vertebrate species.Methodology/Principal FindingsIn this study, we compared the ability of undergraduate students and guppies to discriminate the same numerical ratios, both within and beyond the small number range. In both students and fish the performance was ratio-independent for the numbers 1–4, while it steadily increased with numerical distance when larger numbers were presented.Conclusions/SignificanceOur results suggest that two distinct systems underlie quantity discrimination in both humans and fish, implying that the building blocks of uniquely human mathematical abilities may be evolutionarily ancient, dating back to before the divergence of bony fish and tetrapod lineages.

show abstract

Enumeration of briefly presented items by the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens)

Cited by 81 publications

References 53 publications

Compressed Scaling of Abstract Numerosity Representations in Adult Humans and Monkeys

Compressed Scaling of Abstract Numerosity Representations in Adult Humans and Monkeys

Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) treat small and large numbers of items similarly during a relative quantity judgment task

Evidence for Two Numerical Systems That Are Similar in Humans and Guppies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About