ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2022
Toward a unified account of nonsymbolic and symbolic representations of number: Insights from a combined psychophysical-computational approach.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Linguistic experiential priors account for notation-dependent numerical representations.Cognition · 2026Article
- Different sources of the numerical comparison size effect.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Embodied Processing at Six Linguistic Granularity Levels: A Consensus Paper.Journal of cognition · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is an ongoing, vibrant debate about whether numerical information in both nonsymbolic and symbolic notations would be supported by different neurocognitive systems or rather by a common preverbal approximate number system, which is ratio dependent and follows Weber's law. Here, we propose that the similarities between nonsymbolic and symbolic number processing can be explained based on the principle of efficient coding. To probe this hypothesis we employed a new empirical approach, by predicting the behavioural performance in number comparison tasks with symbolic (i.e., number words) and nonsymbolic (i.e., arrays of dots) information not only from numerical ratio, but for the first time also from natural language data. That is, we used data extracted from vector-space models that are informative about the distributional pattern of number-words usage in natural language. Results showed that linguistic estimates predicted the behavioural performance in both symbolic and nonsymbolic tasks. However, and critically, our results also showed a task-dependent dissociation: linguistic data better predicted the performance in the symbolic task, whereas real numerical ratio better predicted the performance in the nonsymbolic task. These findings indicate that efficient coding of environmental regularities is an explanatory principle of human behavior in tasks involving numerical information. They also suggest that the ability to discriminate a stimulus from similar ones varies as a function of the specific statistical structure of the considered learning environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34918278What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.