Abstract
Number without language: comparative psychology and the evolution of numerical cognition
Highlights
Davis and Perusse (1988) and the commentaries that were involved in that paper presented a number of critical issues in the area of numerical cognition research at that time
One of the largest was whether the use of the term “counting” was appropriate for much of what was being studied with nonhuman animals, and they cautioned against applying that term to methodologies that did not require the principles that underlie counting in humans (e.g., Gelman and Gallistel, 1978)
As the papers in this special topic demonstrate, animals can and do use quantitative and numerical information in a variety of contexts, and in some cases may even be fairly described as numerate, with certain caveats such as being far more “fuzzy” in how they represent numerosities than are humans above 5 or 6 years of age
Summary
Davis and Perusse (1988) and the commentaries that were involved in that paper presented a number of critical issues in the area of numerical cognition research at that time. Davis and Perusse (1988) called for the use of transfer tests, and better controls in experimental work, and those concerns still remain (e.g., Beran, 2012), in general the field has risen to that challenge.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
