Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:12:35.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary on Leibovich et al.: What next?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2017

Kelly S. Mix ,
Nora S. Newcombe  and
Susan C. Levine
Kelly S. Mix
Affiliation:
Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742kmix@umd.edu
Nora S. Newcombe
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122newcombe@temple.edu
Susan C. Levine
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637s-levine@uchicago.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The conclusions reached by Leibovich et al. urge the field to regroup and consider new ways of conceptualizing quantitative development. We suggest three potential directions for new research that follow from the authors' extensive review, as well as building on the common ground we can take from decades of research in this area.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e180
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antell, S. E. & Keating, D. P. (1983) Perception of numerical invariance in neonates. Child Development 54:695–701.Google Scholar
Baillargeon, R. (1994) How do infants learn about the physical world? Current Directions in Psychological Science 3(5):133–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantrell, L., Boyer, T. W., Cordes, S. & Smith, L. B. (2015a) Signal clarity: An account of the variability in infant quantity discrimination tasks. Developmental Science 18(6):877–93. doi: 10.1111/desc.12283.Google Scholar
Cantrell, L. & Smith, L. B. (2013) Open questions and a proposal: A critical review of the evidence on infant numerical abilities. Cognition 128(3):331–52. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.04.008.Google Scholar
Gao, F., Levine, S. C. & Huttenlocher, J. (2000) What do infants know about continuous quantity? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 77(1):20–29.Google Scholar
Mandler, G. & Shebo, B. J. (1982) Subitizing: An analysis of its component processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 111(1):1–22.Google Scholar
Merkley, R. & Ansari, D. (2016) Why numerical symbols count in the development of mathematical skills: Evidence from brain and behavior. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 10:14–20.Google Scholar
Mix, K. S., Huttenlocher, J. & Levine, S. C. (2002a) Multiple cues for quantification in infancy: Is number one of them? Psychological Bulletin 128(2):278–94. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.2.278.Google Scholar
Mix, K. S., Huttenlocher, J. & Levine, S. C. (2002b) Quantitative development in infancy and early childhood. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mix, K. S., Levine, S. C. & Newcombe, N. S. (2016) Development of quantitative thinking across correlated dimensions. In: Continuous issues in numerical cognition, ed. Henik, A., pp. 1–33. Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-801637-4.00001-9.Google Scholar
Rakison, D. H. & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2001) Developmental origin of the animate–inanimate distinction. Psychological Bulletin 127(2):209–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ricciuti, H. N. (1965) Object grouping and selective ordering behavior in infants 12 to 24 months old. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development 11(2):129–48.Google Scholar
Ross-Sheehy, S., Oakes, L. M. & Luck, S. J. (2003) The development of visual short-term memory capacity in infants. Child Development 74(6):1807–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, F. & Carey, S. (1996) Infants' metaphysics: The case of numerical identity. Cognitive Psychology 30(2):111–53.Google Scholar