Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34918278›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2022

Toward a unified account of nonsymbolic and symbolic representations of number: Insights from a combined psychophysical-computational approach.

Luca Rinaldi, Loris Parente, Marco Marelli

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Luca Rinaldi *Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Piazza Botta 6, 27100, Pavia, Italy. luca.rinaldi@unipv.it.
Loris Parente *Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza dell'Ateneo 1, 20126, Milano, Italy.
Marco MarelliDepartment of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza dell'Ateneo 1, 20126, Milano, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

HumansEfficient codingNumerical cognitionVector-space modelsWeber’s law

Identifiers

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.