We test whether symbolic number comparison is handled by an an'/> Symbolic Number Comparison Is Not Processed by the Analog Number System: Different Symbolic and Non-symbolic Numerical Distance and Size Effects
首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Symbolic Number Comparison Is Not Processed by the Analog Number System: Different Symbolic and Non-symbolic Numerical Distance and Size Effects
【2h】

Symbolic Number Comparison Is Not Processed by the Analog Number System: Different Symbolic and Non-symbolic Numerical Distance and Size Effects

机译:模拟数字系统不处理符号数字比较:不同的符号和非符号数字距离和大小影响

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>HIGHLIGHTS class="unordered" style="list-style-type:disc">We test whether symbolic number comparison is handled by an analog noisy system.Analog system model has systematic biases in describing symbolic number comparison.This suggests that symbolic and non-symbolic numbers are processed by different systems.Dominant numerical cognition models suppose that both symbolic and non-symbolic numbers are processed by the Analog Number System (ANS) working according to Weber's law. It was proposed that in a number comparison task the numerical distance and size effects reflect a ratio-based performance which is the sign of the ANS activation. However, increasing number of findings and alternative models propose that symbolic and non-symbolic numbers might be processed by different representations. Importantly, alternative explanations may offer similar predictions to the ANS prediction, therefore, former evidence usually utilizing only the goodness of fit of the ANS prediction is not sufficient to support the ANS account. To test the ANS model more rigorously, a more extensive test is offered here. Several properties of the ANS predictions for the error rates, reaction times, and diffusion model drift rates were systematically analyzed in both non-symbolic dot comparison and symbolic Indo-Arabic comparison tasks. It was consistently found that while the ANS model's prediction is relatively good for the non-symbolic dot comparison, its prediction is poorer and systematically biased for the symbolic Indo-Arabic comparison. We conclude that only non-symbolic comparison is supported by the ANS, and symbolic number comparisons are processed by other representation.
机译:>重点 class =“ unordered” style =“ list-style-type:disc”> <!-list-behavior = unordered prefix-word = mark-type = disc max-label-size = 0-> 我们测试符号数比较是否由模拟噪声系统处理。 模拟系统模型在描述符号数比较时存在系统偏差。 这表明符号和非符号数字是由不同的系统处理的。 主导的数字认知模型假定符号和非符号数字都是由根据韦伯定律工作的模拟数字系统(ANS)处理的。提出在数字比较任务中,数值距离和尺寸效应反映了基于比率的性能,这是ANS激活的标志。但是,越来越多的发现和替代模型提出,符号和非符号数字可能由不同的表示方式处理。重要的是,替代性解释可能会提供与ANS预测相似的预测,因此,通常仅利用ANS预测的拟合优度的先前证据不足以支持ANS帐户。为了更严格地测试ANS模型,此处提供了更广泛的测试。在非符号点比较和符号印度-阿拉伯比较任务中,系统分析了ANS预测的错误率,反应时间和扩散模型漂移率的一些属性。一致地发现,尽管ANS模型的预测对于非符号点比较相对较好,但其预测却较差,并且在符号印度-阿拉伯比较中存在系统偏差。我们得出结论,ANS仅支持非符号比较,而其他表示形式则处理符号数字比较。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号