English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

It has been suggested that differences in performance on number-line estimation tasks are indicative of fundamental differences in people's underlying representations of numerical magnitude. However, we were able to induce logarithmic-looking performance in adults for magnitude ranges over which they can typically perform linearly by manipulating their familiarity with the symbolic number formats that we used for the stimuli. This serves as an existence proof that individuals' performances on number-line estimation tasks do not necessarily reflect the functional form of their underlying numerical magnitude representations. Rather, performance differences may result from symbolic difficulties (i.e., number-to-symbol mappings), independently of the underlying functional form. We demonstrated that number-line estimates that are well fit by logarithmic functions need not be produced by logarithmic functions. These findings led us to question the validity of considering logarithmic-looking performance on number-line estimation tasks as being indicative that magnitudes are being represented logarithmically, particularly when symbolic understanding is in question.

Knowledge on the line: Manipulating beliefs about the magnitudes of symbolic numbers affects the linearity of line estimation tasks