Topographical map for quantities – Indeed? Commentary on Harvey et al 2013, 2017

Q1 Psychology
Tali Leibovich-Raveh
{"title":"Topographical map for quantities – Indeed? Commentary on Harvey et al 2013, 2017","authors":"Tali Leibovich-Raveh","doi":"10.1016/j.crbeha.2023.100103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In an fMRI passive viewing task made in a 7T scanner, Harvey et al (2013) asked adult participants to passively view dots on a screen and reported a topographical map of quantities in the human intraparietal sulcus (IPS), suggesting that quantities are directly perceived, and their cortical organization may be fundamental to human abilities in mathematics. This paper, which was published in Science, got lots of attention and was cited 469 times since. In a later Neuroimage paper (2017), the authors analyzed the response to the visual features of the stimuli and suggested that the neural responses do not reflect the processing of visual features. I raise several reasons to restrict these conclusions. (1) the study design emphasized quantity over continuous magnitudes such as density and area. This may be problematic since neural activity can be influenced by attending to a specific dimension. (2) Poor control over continuous magnitudes. (3) The conclusions should be restricted to small quantities. (4) Task context influences neural activity, and (5) When the analysis is restricted to a specific cortical area, the conclusion should be restricted as well.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72746,"journal":{"name":"Current research in behavioral sciences","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current research in behavioral sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666518223000086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In an fMRI passive viewing task made in a 7T scanner, Harvey et al (2013) asked adult participants to passively view dots on a screen and reported a topographical map of quantities in the human intraparietal sulcus (IPS), suggesting that quantities are directly perceived, and their cortical organization may be fundamental to human abilities in mathematics. This paper, which was published in Science, got lots of attention and was cited 469 times since. In a later Neuroimage paper (2017), the authors analyzed the response to the visual features of the stimuli and suggested that the neural responses do not reflect the processing of visual features. I raise several reasons to restrict these conclusions. (1) the study design emphasized quantity over continuous magnitudes such as density and area. This may be problematic since neural activity can be influenced by attending to a specific dimension. (2) Poor control over continuous magnitudes. (3) The conclusions should be restricted to small quantities. (4) Task context influences neural activity, and (5) When the analysis is restricted to a specific cortical area, the conclusion should be restricted as well.

工程量地形图——是吗?Harvey等人评论20132017
Harvey等人(2013)在7T扫描仪上进行的fMRI被动观看任务中,要求成年参与者被动观看屏幕上的点,并报告了人类顶叶内沟(IPS)数量的地形图,表明数量是直接感知的,它们的皮层组织可能是人类数学能力的基础。这篇发表在《科学》杂志上的论文引起了广泛关注,被引用了469次。在随后的Neuroimage论文(2017)中,作者分析了对刺激视觉特征的反应,并提出神经反应并不反映视觉特征的处理。我提出了几个理由来限制这些结论。(1)研究设计强调数量多于密度、面积等连续量级。这可能是有问题的,因为神经活动可以通过关注特定的维度来影响。(2)对连续幅度控制不力。(3)结论应限于小数量。(4)任务情境影响神经活动;(5)当分析仅限于特定的皮层区域时,结论也应受到限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Current research in behavioral sciences
Current research in behavioral sciences Behavioral Neuroscience
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
40 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信