It is widely accepted that human and nonhuman species possess a specialized system to process large approximate numerosities. The theory of an evolutionarily ancient approximate number system (ANS) has received converging support from developmental studies, comparative experiments, neuroimaging, and computational modelling, and it is one of the most dominant and influential theories in numerical cognition. The existence of an ANS system is significant, as it is believed to be the building block of numerical development in general. The acuity of the ANS is related to future arithmetic achievements, and intervention strategies therefore aim to improve the ANS. Here we critically review current evidence supporting the existence of an ANS. We show that important shortcomings and confounds exist in the empirical studies on human and non-human animals as well as the logic used to build computational models that support the ANS theory. We conclude that rather than taking the ANS theory for granted, a more comprehensive explanation might be provided by a sensory-integration system that compares or estimates large approximate numerosities by integrating the different sensory cues comprising number stimuli.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,048,628
of 32,760,122 outputs
Outputs from Acta Psychologica
#517
of 2,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,948
of 308,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Psychologica
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,760,122 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,100 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,422 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
