Six-month-old infants discriminate between large sets of objects on the basis of numerosity when other extraneous variables are controlled, provided that the sets to be discriminated differ by a large ratio (8 vs. 16 but not 8 vs. 12). The capacities to represent approximate numerosity found in adult animals and humans evidently develop in human infants prior to language and symbolic counting.

Human adults are thought to possess two dissociable systems to represent numbers: an approximate quantity system akin to a mental number line, and a verbal system capable of representing numbers exactly. Here, we study the interface between these two systems using an estimation task. Observers were asked to estimate the approximate numerosity of dot arrays. We show that, in the absence of calibration, estimates are largely inaccurate: responses increase monotonically with numerosity, but underestimate the actual numerosity. However, insertion of a (...) few inducer trials, in which participants are explicitly (and sometimes misleadingly) told that a given display contains 30 dots, is sufficient to calibrate their estimates on the whole range of stimuli. Based on these empirical results, we develop a model of the mapping between the numerical symbols and the representations of numerosity on the number line. (shrink)

In this study, we directly contrast two approaches that have been proposed to explain the SNARC effect. The traditional direct mapping account suggests that a direct association exists between the position of a number on the mental number line and the location of the response. On the other hand, accounts are considered that propose an intermediate step in which numbers are categorized as either small or large between the number magnitude and the response representations. In a magnitude comparison task, we (...) departed from the usual bimanual left/right response dimension and instead introduced the unimanual close/far dimension. A spatial-numerical association was observed: small numbers were associated with a close response, while large numbers were associated with a far response, regardless of the movement direction (left/right). We discuss why these results cannot be explained by assuming a direct mapping from the representation of numbers on a mental number line to response locations and discuss how the results can be explained by the alternative accounts. (shrink)