Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29914993›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2018

Number concepts: abstract and embodied.

Martin H Fischer, Samuel Shaki

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Multi-dimensional sensorimotor grounding of concrete and abstract categories.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Dutch sensory modality norms.Behavior research methods · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. More Instructions Make Fewer Subtractions.Frontiers in psychology · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Martin H FischerDivision of Cognitive Sciences, Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Strasse 24-25, House 14, 14476 Potsdam OT Golm, Germany martinf@uni-potsdam.de.ORCID 0000-0003-3818-7272
Samuel ShakiDepartment of Behavioral Sciences, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerical knowledge, including number concepts and arithmetic procedures, seems to be a clear-cut case for abstract symbol manipulation. Yet, evidence from perceptual and motor behaviour reveals that natural number knowledge and simple arithmetic also remain closely associated with modal experiences. Following a review of behavioural, animal and neuroscience studies of number processing, we propose a revised understanding of psychological number concepts as grounded in physical constraints, embodied in experience and situated through task-specific intentions. The idea that number concepts occupy a range of positions on the continuum between abstract and modal conceptual knowledge also accounts for systematic heuristics and biases in mental arithmetic, thus inviting psycho-logical approaches to the study of the mathematical mind.This article is part of the theme issue 'Varieties of abstract concepts: development, use and representation in the brain'.

Indexed as

CognitionConcept FormationKnowledgeMathematical ConceptsHumansembodied cognitionmental arithmeticmental number linenumerical cognitionSNARC effect

Identifiers

PMID29914993
PMCPMC6015824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.