2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The discovery and comparison of symbolic magnitudes

Abstract: a b s t r a c tHumans and other primates are able to make relative magnitude comparisons, both with perceptual stimuli and with symbolic inputs that convey magnitude information. Although numerous models of magnitude comparison have been proposed, the basic question of how symbolic magnitudes (e.g., size or intelligence of animals) are derived and represented in memory has received little attention. We argue that symbolic magnitudes often will not correspond directly to elementary features of individual concep… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
23
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 98 publications
2
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The main result of this study is in line with reference point models (see Chen et al, 2014;Dehaene, 1989) and it is relevant for theories in which the congruency between magnitude of the stimulus and direction of the comparison affects the strength of the evidence signal (Leth-Steensen & Marley, 2000;Petrusic et al, 2008).…”
Section: Ddm Decomposition Of Semantic Congruity Effect 90supporting
confidence: 86%
“…The main result of this study is in line with reference point models (see Chen et al, 2014;Dehaene, 1989) and it is relevant for theories in which the congruency between magnitude of the stimulus and direction of the comparison affects the strength of the evidence signal (Leth-Steensen & Marley, 2000;Petrusic et al, 2008).…”
Section: Ddm Decomposition Of Semantic Congruity Effect 90supporting
confidence: 86%
“…(MATLAB code for the BART model is available at cvl.psych.ucla.edu/BART2code.zip.) An earlier version of this model had the limited function of learning comparative relations (e.g., “larger,” “smarter”) (10, 20, 21). BART takes as inputs feature vectors for pairs of words that constitute positive or negative examples of a semantic relation.…”
Section: Model Of Relation Learningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The instructional implication is that learning would benefit from teachers and textbooks presenting well-chosen analogies that highlight that the same reasoning applies to DD as to WD problems. Instruction based on structurally sound analogies has often proved effective in improving numerical understanding (e.g., Chen, Lu, & Holyoak, 2014;Opfer & Siegler, 2007;Sullivan & Barner, 2014). The clear parallels between multiplication of a whole number and a rational number between zero and one, and two rational numbers between zero and one, suggest that promoting analogies from the easier to the harder case could improve learning.…”
Section: Implications For Instructionmentioning
confidence: 99%