Abstract

Comments on an article by Feigenson et. al.(see record 2004-18473-007). Reviewing behavioral and neural data in children, humans and animals, Feigenson and colleagues distinguish two core systems for number representation. One system represents number in an exact way but has a fixed upper limit; the other system has no size limit but represents number only approximately. Both systems are claimed to have a phylogenetic origin and to constitute the basis for ontogenetic development. As such, each system's representational principles are reflected in adult human performance: subitizing is ascribed to the exact system whereas symbolic number processing is based on a mapping to the approximate system. This last assumption is motivated by the robust finding that symbolic numbers are more difficult to discriminate with increasing size (the 'size effect'). However, it remains to be shown how this mapping can reconcile the inherently exact nature of a symbolic system with signatures of approximate processing such as the size effect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)