评估数性和数感存在的非数值方法

Q2 Mathematics
César Frederico dos Santos
{"title":"评估数性和数感存在的非数值方法","authors":"César Frederico dos Santos","doi":"10.5964/jnc.10215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the literature on numerical cognition, the presence of the capacity to distinguish between numerosities by attending to the number of items, rather than continuous properties of stimuli that correlate with it, is commonly taken as sufficient indication of numerical abilities in cognitive agents. However, this literature does not take into account that there are non-numerical methods of assessing numerosity, which opens up the possibility that cognitive agents lacking numerical abilities may still be able to represent numerosity. In this paper, I distinguish between numerical and non-numerical methods of assessing numerosity and show that the most common models of the internal mechanisms of the so-called number sense rely on non-numerical methods, despite the claims of their proponents to the contrary. I conclude that, even if it is established that agents attend to numerosity, rather than continuous properties of stimuli correlated with it, an answer to the question of the existence of the number sense is still pending the investigation of a further issue, namely, whether the mechanisms the brain uses to assess numerosity qualify as numerical or non-numerical.","PeriodicalId":36632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Numerical Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-numerical methods of assessing numerosity and the existence of the number sense\",\"authors\":\"César Frederico dos Santos\",\"doi\":\"10.5964/jnc.10215\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the literature on numerical cognition, the presence of the capacity to distinguish between numerosities by attending to the number of items, rather than continuous properties of stimuli that correlate with it, is commonly taken as sufficient indication of numerical abilities in cognitive agents. However, this literature does not take into account that there are non-numerical methods of assessing numerosity, which opens up the possibility that cognitive agents lacking numerical abilities may still be able to represent numerosity. In this paper, I distinguish between numerical and non-numerical methods of assessing numerosity and show that the most common models of the internal mechanisms of the so-called number sense rely on non-numerical methods, despite the claims of their proponents to the contrary. I conclude that, even if it is established that agents attend to numerosity, rather than continuous properties of stimuli correlated with it, an answer to the question of the existence of the number sense is still pending the investigation of a further issue, namely, whether the mechanisms the brain uses to assess numerosity qualify as numerical or non-numerical.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36632,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Numerical Cognition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Numerical Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.10215\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Mathematics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Numerical Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.10215","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在关于数字认知的文献中,通过关注项目的数量来区分数字的能力,而不是与之相关的刺激的连续特性,通常被视为认知主体数字能力的充分指示。然而,这篇文献没有考虑到评估数量的非数字方法,这为缺乏数字能力的认知主体仍然能够表示数量提供了可能性。在这篇论文中,我区分了评估数量性的数值方法和非数值方法,并表明所谓数感的内部机制的最常见模型依赖于非数值方法——尽管其支持者声称相反。我的结论是,即使已经确定了主体关注的是数字性,而不是与之相关的刺激的连续特性,但数字感存在的问题的答案仍有待于对另一个问题的研究,即大脑用来评估数字性的机制是数字的还是非数字的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Non-numerical methods of assessing numerosity and the existence of the number sense
In the literature on numerical cognition, the presence of the capacity to distinguish between numerosities by attending to the number of items, rather than continuous properties of stimuli that correlate with it, is commonly taken as sufficient indication of numerical abilities in cognitive agents. However, this literature does not take into account that there are non-numerical methods of assessing numerosity, which opens up the possibility that cognitive agents lacking numerical abilities may still be able to represent numerosity. In this paper, I distinguish between numerical and non-numerical methods of assessing numerosity and show that the most common models of the internal mechanisms of the so-called number sense rely on non-numerical methods, despite the claims of their proponents to the contrary. I conclude that, even if it is established that agents attend to numerosity, rather than continuous properties of stimuli correlated with it, an answer to the question of the existence of the number sense is still pending the investigation of a further issue, namely, whether the mechanisms the brain uses to assess numerosity qualify as numerical or non-numerical.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Numerical Cognition
Journal of Numerical Cognition Mathematics-Numerical Analysis
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
40 weeks
×
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