TY - GEN A1 - Felisatti, Arianna A1 - Laubrock, Jochen A1 - Shaki, Samuel A1 - Fischer, Martin H. T1 - Commentary BT - A mental number line in human newborns T2 - Postprints der Universität Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe - 620 KW - spatial-numerical associations KW - SNARC KW - mental number line (MNL) KW - spatial frequency (SF) KW - temporal frequency KW - hemispheric asymmetry KW - newborns KW - embodied cognition Y1 - 2020 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-460413 SN - 1866-8364 IS - 620 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Felisatti, Arianna A1 - Laubrock, Jochen A1 - Shaki, Samuel A1 - Fischer, Martin H. T1 - Commentary BT - A mental number line in human newborns JF - Frontiers in Human Neuroscience KW - spatial-numerical associations KW - SNARC KW - mental number line (MNL) KW - spatial frequency (SF) KW - temporal frequency KW - hemispheric asymmetry KW - newborns KW - embodied cognition Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00099 SN - 1662-5161 VL - 14 PB - Frontiers Research Foundation CY - Lausanne ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Felisatti, Arianna A1 - Laubrock, Jochen A1 - Shaki, Samuel A1 - Fischer, Martin H. T1 - A biological foundation for spatial–numerical associations BT - the brain's asymmetric frequency tuning JF - Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences N2 - "Left" and "right" coordinates control our spatial behavior and even influence abstract thoughts. For number concepts, horizontal spatial-numerical associations (SNAs) have been widely documented: we associate few with left and many with right. Importantly, increments are universally coded on the right side even in preverbal humans and nonhuman animals, thus questioning the fundamental role of directional cultural habits, such as reading or finger counting. Here, we propose a biological, nonnumerical mechanism for the origin of SNAs on the basis of asymmetric tuning of animal brains for different spatial frequencies (SFs). The resulting selective visual processing predicts both universal SNAs and their context-dependence. We support our proposal by analyzing the stimuli used to document SNAs in newborns for their SF content. As predicted, the SFs contained in visual patterns with few versus many elements preferentially engage right versus left brain hemispheres, respectively, thus predicting left-versus rightward behavioral biases. Our "brain's asymmetric frequency tuning" hypothesis explains the perceptual origin of horizontal SNAs for nonsymbolic visual numerosities and might be extensible to the auditory domain. KW - hemispheric asymmetry KW - numerical cognition KW - SNARC effect KW - spatial KW - frequency tuning KW - spatial-numerical associations KW - spatial vision Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14418 SN - 0077-8923 SN - 1749-6632 VL - 1477 IS - 1 SP - 44 EP - 53 PB - Wiley CY - Hoboken ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Felisatti, Arianna A1 - Aagten-Murphy, David A1 - Laubrock, Jochen A1 - Shaki, Samuel A1 - Fischer, Martin H. T1 - The brain’s asymmetric frequency tuning BT - asymmetric behavior originates from asymmetric perception JF - Symmetry / Molecular Diversity Preservation International (MDPI) N2 - To construct a coherent multi-modal percept, vertebrate brains extract low-level features (such as spatial and temporal frequencies) from incoming sensory signals. However, because frequency processing is lateralized with the right hemisphere favouring low frequencies while the left favours higher frequencies, this introduces asymmetries between the hemispheres. Here, we describe how this lateralization shapes the development of several cognitive domains, ranging from visuo-spatial and numerical cognition to language, social cognition, and even aesthetic appreciation, and leads to the emergence of asymmetries in behaviour. We discuss the neuropsychological and educational implications of these emergent asymmetries and suggest future research approaches. KW - asymmetry KW - global KW - local KW - spatial frequencies KW - temporal frequencies KW - embodied cognition Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12122083 SN - 2073-8994 VL - 12 IS - 12 PB - MDPI CY - Basel ER - TY - GEN A1 - Fischer, Martin A1 - Winter, Bodo A1 - Felisatti, Arianna A1 - Myachykov, Andriy A1 - Jeglinski-Mende, Melinda A. A1 - Shaki, Samuel T1 - More Instructions Make Fewer Subtractions T2 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe N2 - Research on problem solving offers insights into how humans process task-related information and which strategies they use (Newell and Simon, 1972; Öllinger et al., 2014). Problem solving can be defined as the search for possible changes in one's mind (Kahneman, 2003). In a recent study, Adams et al. (2021) assessed whether the predominant problem solving strategy when making changes involves adding or subtracting elements. In order to do this, they used several examples of simple problems, such as editing text or making visual patterns symmetrical, either in naturalistic settings or on-line. The essence of the authors' findings is a strong preference to add rather than subtract elements across a diverse range of problems, including the stabilizing of artifacts, creating symmetrical patterns, or editing texts. More specifically, they succeeded in demonstrating that “participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (vs. did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (vs. several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (vs. lower) cognitive load” (Adams et al., 2021, p. 258). Addition and subtraction are generally defined as de-contextualized mathematical operations using abstract symbols (Russell, 1903/1938). Nevertheless, understanding of both symbols and operations is informed by everyday activities, such as making or breaking objects (Lakoff and Núñez, 2000; Fischer and Shaki, 2018). The universal attribution of “addition bias” or “subtraction neglect” to problem solving activities is perhaps a convenient shorthand but it overlooks influential framing effects beyond those already acknowledged in the report and the accompanying commentary (Meyvis and Yoon, 2021). Most importantly, while Adams et al.'s study addresses an important issue, their very method of verbally instructing participants, together with lack of control over several known biases, might render their findings less than conclusive. Below, we discuss our concerns that emerged from the identified biases, namely those regarding the instructions and the experimental materials. Moreover, we refer to research from mathematical cognition that provides new insights into Adams et al.'s findings. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe - 763 KW - problem solving KW - addition KW - subtraction KW - cognitive bias KW - SNARC Y1 - 2022 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-550086 SN - 1866-8364 VL - 12 SP - 1 EP - 3 PB - Universitätsverlag Potsdam CY - Potsdam ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fischer, Martin A1 - Winter, Bodo A1 - Felisatti, Arianna A1 - Myachykov, Andriy A1 - Jeglinski-Mende, Melinda A. A1 - Shaki, Samuel T1 - More Instructions Make Fewer Subtractions JF - Frontiers in Psychology N2 - Research on problem solving offers insights into how humans process task-related information and which strategies they use (Newell and Simon, 1972; Öllinger et al., 2014). Problem solving can be defined as the search for possible changes in one's mind (Kahneman, 2003). In a recent study, Adams et al. (2021) assessed whether the predominant problem solving strategy when making changes involves adding or subtracting elements. In order to do this, they used several examples of simple problems, such as editing text or making visual patterns symmetrical, either in naturalistic settings or on-line. The essence of the authors' findings is a strong preference to add rather than subtract elements across a diverse range of problems, including the stabilizing of artifacts, creating symmetrical patterns, or editing texts. More specifically, they succeeded in demonstrating that “participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (vs. did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (vs. several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (vs. lower) cognitive load” (Adams et al., 2021, p. 258). Addition and subtraction are generally defined as de-contextualized mathematical operations using abstract symbols (Russell, 1903/1938). Nevertheless, understanding of both symbols and operations is informed by everyday activities, such as making or breaking objects (Lakoff and Núñez, 2000; Fischer and Shaki, 2018). The universal attribution of “addition bias” or “subtraction neglect” to problem solving activities is perhaps a convenient shorthand but it overlooks influential framing effects beyond those already acknowledged in the report and the accompanying commentary (Meyvis and Yoon, 2021). Most importantly, while Adams et al.'s study addresses an important issue, their very method of verbally instructing participants, together with lack of control over several known biases, might render their findings less than conclusive. Below, we discuss our concerns that emerged from the identified biases, namely those regarding the instructions and the experimental materials. Moreover, we refer to research from mathematical cognition that provides new insights into Adams et al.'s findings. KW - problem solving KW - addition KW - subtraction KW - cognitive bias KW - SNARC Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720616 SN - 1664-1078 VL - 12 SP - 1 EP - 3 PB - Frontiers Media SA CY - Lausanne, Schweiz ER -