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/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

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

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Contrary to the longstanding and consensual hypothesis that adults mainly solve small single-digit additions by directly retrieving their answer from long-term memory, it has been recently argued that adults could solve small additions through fast automated counting procedures. In a recent article, Chen and Campbell (Psychonomic Bulletin &amp; Review, 25, 739-753, 2018) reviewed the main empirical evidence on which this alternative hypothesis is based, and concluded that there is no reason to jettison the retrieval hypothesis. In the present paper, we pinpoint the fact that Chen and Campbell reached some of their conclusions by excluding some of the problems that need to be considered for a proper argumentation against the automated counting procedure theory. We also explain why, contrary to Chen and Campbell's assumption, the network interference model proposed by Campbell (Mathematical Cognition, 1, 121-164, 1995) cannot account for our data. Finally, we clarify a theoretical point of our model.

Are small additions solved by direct retrieval from memory or automated counting procedures? A rejoinder to Chen and Campbell (2018)