What counts in estimation? The nature of the preverbal system

Karolis, Vyacheslav; Butterworth, Brian

doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.04.025

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both studied dimensions (non-numerical and numerical) yielded faster responses for larger values ( many, long ) and a trend for higher accuracy for the lowest values ( few, short ). Shorter reaction times for larger magnitudes have been reported elsewhere (Karolis and Butterworth, 2016), most likely indicating that their associated perceptual mechanism has more information available for making the decision. These effects will acquire further meaning when correlated to the brain activity and, in turn, they show that variations in the dimensions produced differences at the behavioral level as well.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 51%

A MEG Study on the Processing of Time and Quantity: Parietal Overlap but Functional Divergence

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common magnitude system for the processing of time and numerosity, supported by areas in the posterior parietal cortex, has been proposed by some authors. The present study aims to investigate possible intersections between the neural processing of non-numerical (time) and numerical magnitudes in the posterior parietal lobe. Using Magnetoencephalography for the comparison of brain source activations during the processing of duration and numerosity contrasts, we demonstrate parietal overlap as well as dissociations between these two dimensions. Within the parietal cortex, the main areas of overlap were bilateral precuneus, bilateral intraparietal sulci, and right supramarginal gyrus. Interestingly, however, these regions did not equivalently correlated with the behavior for the two dimensions: left and right precuneus together with the right supramarginal gyrus accounted functionally for durational judgments, whereas numerosity judgments were accounted by the activation pattern in the right intraparietal sulcus. Present results, indeed, demonstrate an overlap between the neural substrates for processing duration and quantity. However, the functional relevance of parietal overlapping areas for each dimension is not the same. In fact, our data indicates that the same parietal sites rule differently non-numerical and numerical dimensions, as parts of broader networks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 51%

A MEG Study on the Processing of Time and Quantity: Parietal Overlap but Functional Divergence

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One proposal about the nature of the mechanism that has been used to explain both human and non-human numerical abilities is the linear accumulator. For a recent mathematical account of a linear accumulator, see [38].…”

Section: The Cognitive Level: a Domain-specific Tool In The Starter Kmentioning

confidence: 99%

The implications for education of an innate numerosity-processing mechanism

Butterworth¹

2018

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One specific cause of low numeracy is a deficit in a mechanism for representing and processing numerosities that humans inherited and which is putatively shared with many other species. This deficit is evident at each of the four levels of explanation in the 'causal modelling' framework of Morton and Frith (Morton and Frith 1995 In , vol. 1 (eds D Cichetti, D Cohen), pp. 357-390). Very low numeracy can occur in cognitively able individuals with normal access to good education: it is linked to an easily measured deficit in basic numerosity processing; it has a distinctive neural signature; and twin studies suggest specific heritability, though the relevant genes have not yet been identified. Unfortunately, educators and policymakers seem largely unaware of this cause, but appropriate interventions could alleviate the suffering and handicap of those with low numeracy, and would be a major benefit to society.This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'The origins of numerical abilities'.

show abstract

“…It remains an open question whether the first abstract 'read-out' is provided in a form of summation, as in their model, or as a number-selective coding. It has previously been argued (Karolis & Butterworth, 2016;Stoianov&Zorzi, 2012) that an abstract representation in a form of number-selective code is likely to require an accumulator process preceding it.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ANS model, however, has been challenged by the suggestion that stimulusnumerosity can be obtained withoutitem enumeration through a weighted integration of continuous magnitude features (Gebuis, Kadosh, &Gevers, 2016;Gebuis&Reynvoet, 2012;Karolis & Butterworth, 2016;Stoianov&Zorzi, 2012). Several studies demonstrated thatsystematic manipulations of continuous magnitudes can bias numerosity judgements (Gebuis&Reynvoet, 2012;Dakin, Tibber, Greenwood, Kingdom, & Morgan, 2011;Tibber, Greenwood, & Dakin, 2012).This has been taken to suggest that no abstract numerosity representation is constructed from perceptual magnitudesand that the metric for approximate number relies on the metric for continuous magnitudes (Gebuis, Kadosh, &Gevers, 2016;Dakin et al, 2011).A compromise between the ANS and the weighted-integration hypotheses has also been proposed: an abstract 'read-out' of approximate numerositymay exist in the brainas an emergent property of the integration of continuous magnitudes (Karolis & Butterworth, 2016;Stoianov&Zorzi, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%