Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Postprint (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (5) (remove)
Keywords
- SNARC (4)
- embodied cognition (3)
- hemispheric asymmetry (3)
- spatial-numerical associations (3)
- addition (2)
- cognitive bias (2)
- mental number line (MNL) (2)
- newborns (2)
- problem solving (2)
- spatial frequency (SF) (2)
Institute
- Strukturbereich Kognitionswissenschaften (5) (remove)
Commentary
(2020)
Commentary
(2020)
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.
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.
Among the different meanings carried by numerical information, cardinality is fundamental for survival and for the development of basic as well as of higher numerical skills. Importantly, the human brain inherits from evolution a predisposition to map cardinality onto space, as revealed by the presence of spatial-numerical associations (SNAs) in humans and animals. Here, the mapping of cardinal information onto physical space is addressed as a hallmark signature characterizing numerical cognition.
According to traditional approaches, cognition is defined as complex forms of internal information processing, taking place in the brain (cognitive processor). On the contrary, embodied cognition approaches define cognition as functionally linked to perception and action, in the continuous interaction between a biological body and its physical and sociocultural environment.
Embracing the principles of the embodied cognition perspective, I conducted four novel studies designed to unveil how SNAs originate, develop, and adapt, depending on characteristics of the organism, the context, and their interaction. I structured my doctoral thesis in three levels. At the grounded level (Study 1), I unfold the biological foundations underlying the tendency to map cardinal information across space; at the embodied level (Study 2), I reveal the impact of atypical motor development on the construction of SNAs; at the situated level (Study 3), I document the joint influence of visuospatial attention and task properties on SNAs. Furthermore, I experimentally investigate the presence of associations between physical and numerical distance, another numerical property fundamental for the development of efficient mathematical minds (Study 4).
In Study 1, I present the Brain’s Asymmetric Frequency Tuning hypothesis that relies on hemispheric asymmetries for processing spatial frequencies, a low-level visual feature that the (in)vertebrate brain extracts from any visual scene to create a coherent percept of the world. Computational analyses of the power spectra of the original stimuli used to document the presence of SNAs in human newborns and animals, support the brain’s asymmetric frequency tuning as a theoretical account and as an evolutionarily inherited mechanism scaffolding the universal and innate tendency to represent cardinality across horizontal space.
In Study 2, I explore SNAs in children with rare genetic neuromuscular diseases: spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) and Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). SMA children never accomplish independent motoric exploration of their environment; in contrast, DMD children do explore but later lose this ability. The different SNAs reported by the two groups support the critical role of early sensorimotor experiences in the spatial representation of cardinality.
In Study 3, I directly compare the effects of overt attentional orientation during explicit and implicit processing of numerical magnitude. First, the different effects of attentional orienting based on the type of assessment support different mechanisms underlying SNAs during explicit and implicit assessment of numerical magnitude. Secondly, the impact of vertical shifts of attention on the processing of numerical distance sheds light on the correspondence between numerical distance and peri-personal distance.
In Study 4, I document the presence of different SNAs, driven by numerical magnitude and numerical distance, by employing different response mappings (left vs. right and near vs. distant).
In the field of numerical cognition, the four studies included in the present thesis contribute to unveiling how the characteristics of the organism and the environment influence the emergence, the development, and the flexibility of our attitude to represent cardinal information across space, thus supporting the predictions of the embodied cognition approach. Furthermore, they inform a taxonomy of body-centred factors (biological properties of the brain and sensorimotor system) modulating the spatial representation of cardinality throughout the course of life, at the grounded, embodied, and situated levels.
If the awareness for different variables influencing SNAs over the course of life is important, it is equally important to consider the organism as a whole in its sensorimotor interaction with the world. Inspired by my doctoral research, here I propose a holistic perspective that considers the role of evolution, embodiment, and environment in the association of cardinal information with directional space. The new perspective advances the current approaches to SNAs, both at the conceptual and at the methodological levels.
Unveiling how the mental representation of cardinality emerges, develops, and adapts is necessary to shape efficient mathematical minds and achieve economic productivity, technological progress, and a higher quality of life.