dc.contributor.author | Núñez, Rafael | |
dc.contributor.author | d'Errico, Francesco | |
dc.contributor.author | Gray, Russell D. | |
dc.contributor.author | Bender, Andrea | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-04-20T06:23:33Z | |
dc.date.available | 2023-04-20T06:23:33Z | |
dc.date.created | 2022-01-05T12:56:04Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0140-525X | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3063915 | |
dc.description.abstract | Clarke and Beck's defense of the theoretical construct “approximate number system” (ANS) is flawed in serious ways – from biological misconceptions to mathematical naïveté. The authors misunderstand behavioral/psychological technical concepts, such as numerosity and quantical cognition, which they disdain as “exotic.” Additionally, their characterization of rational numbers is blind to the essential role of symbolic reference in the emergence of number. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
dc.rights | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal | * |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.no | * |
dc.title | The perception of quantity ain’t number: Missing the primacy of symbolic reference | en_US |
dc.type | Journal article | en_US |
dc.type | Peer reviewed | en_US |
dc.description.version | acceptedVersion | en_US |
dc.rights.holder | Copyright 2021 The Author(s) | en_US |
dc.source.articlenumber | e199 | en_US |
cristin.ispublished | true | |
cristin.fulltext | postprint | |
cristin.qualitycode | 2 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1017/S0140525X21001023 | |
dc.identifier.cristin | 1975117 | |
dc.source.journal | Behavioral and Brain Sciences | en_US |
dc.relation.project | ERC-European Research Council: 951388 | en_US |
dc.relation.project | Norges forskningsråd: 262618 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2021, 44, e199. | en_US |
dc.source.volume | 44 | en_US |