@Article{Feigenson2005a,
  author   = {Lisa Feigenson and Susan Carey},
  journal  = {Cognition},
  title    = {On the limits of infants' quantification of small object arrays.},
  year     = {2005},
  number   = {3},
  pages    = {295-313},
  volume   = {97},
  abstract = {Recent work suggests that infants rely on mechanisms of object-based
	attention and short-term memory to represent small numbers of objects.
	Such work shows that infants discriminate arrays containing 1, 2,
	or 3 objects, but fail with arrays greater than 3 [Feigenson, L.,
	& Carey, S. (2003). Tracking individuals via object-files: Evidence
	from infants' manual search. Developmental Science, 6, 568-584; Feigenson,
	L., Carey, S., & Hauser, M. (2002). The representations underlying
	infants' choice of more: Object files versus analog magnitudes. Psychological
	Science, 13(2), 150-156]. However, little is known about how infants
	represent arrays exceeding the 3-item limit of parallel representation.
	We explored possible formats by which infants might represent a 4-object
	array. Experiment 1 used a manual search paradigm to show that infants
	successfully discriminated between arrays of 1 vs. 2, 2 vs. 3, and
	1 vs. 3 objects. However, infants failed to discriminate 1 vs. 4
	despite the highly discriminable ratio, providing the strongest evidence
	to date for object-file representations underlying performance in
	this task. Experiment 2 replicated this dramatic failure to discriminate
	1 from 4 in a second paradigm, a cracker choice task. We then showed
	that infants in the choice task succeeded at choosing the larger
	quantity with 0 vs. 4 crackers and with 1 small vs. 4 large crackers.
	These results suggest that while infants failed to represent 4 as
	"exactly 4", "approximately 4", "3", or as even as "a plurality",
	they did represent information about the array, including the existence
	of a cracker or cracker-material and the size of the individual objects
	in the array.},
  doi      = {10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.010},
  keywords = {16260263},
}

{"_id":"NZytBJrhducBctESE","bibbaseid":"feigenson-carey-onthelimitsofinfantsquantificationofsmallobjectarrays-2005","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Feigenson, L.","Carey, S."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","author":[{"firstnames":["Lisa"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Feigenson"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Susan"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Carey"],"suffixes":[]}],"journal":"Cognition","title":"On the limits of infants' quantification of small object arrays.","year":"2005","number":"3","pages":"295-313","volume":"97","abstract":"Recent work suggests that infants rely on mechanisms of object-based attention and short-term memory to represent small numbers of objects. Such work shows that infants discriminate arrays containing 1, 2, or 3 objects, but fail with arrays greater than 3 [Feigenson, L., & Carey, S. (2003). Tracking individuals via object-files: Evidence from infants' manual search. Developmental Science, 6, 568-584; Feigenson, L., Carey, S., & Hauser, M. (2002). The representations underlying infants' choice of more: Object files versus analog magnitudes. Psychological Science, 13(2), 150-156]. However, little is known about how infants represent arrays exceeding the 3-item limit of parallel representation. We explored possible formats by which infants might represent a 4-object array. Experiment 1 used a manual search paradigm to show that infants successfully discriminated between arrays of 1 vs. 2, 2 vs. 3, and 1 vs. 3 objects. However, infants failed to discriminate 1 vs. 4 despite the highly discriminable ratio, providing the strongest evidence to date for object-file representations underlying performance in this task. Experiment 2 replicated this dramatic failure to discriminate 1 from 4 in a second paradigm, a cracker choice task. We then showed that infants in the choice task succeeded at choosing the larger quantity with 0 vs. 4 crackers and with 1 small vs. 4 large crackers. These results suggest that while infants failed to represent 4 as \"exactly 4\", \"approximately 4\", \"3\", or as even as \"a plurality\", they did represent information about the array, including the existence of a cracker or cracker-material and the size of the individual objects in the array.","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.010","keywords":"16260263","bibtex":"@Article{Feigenson2005a,\n author = {Lisa Feigenson and Susan Carey},\n journal = {Cognition},\n title = {On the limits of infants' quantification of small object arrays.},\n year = {2005},\n number = {3},\n pages = {295-313},\n volume = {97},\n abstract = {Recent work suggests that infants rely on mechanisms of object-based\n\tattention and short-term memory to represent small numbers of objects.\n\tSuch work shows that infants discriminate arrays containing 1, 2,\n\tor 3 objects, but fail with arrays greater than 3 [Feigenson, L.,\n\t& Carey, S. (2003). Tracking individuals via object-files: Evidence\n\tfrom infants' manual search. Developmental Science, 6, 568-584; Feigenson,\n\tL., Carey, S., & Hauser, M. (2002). The representations underlying\n\tinfants' choice of more: Object files versus analog magnitudes. Psychological\n\tScience, 13(2), 150-156]. However, little is known about how infants\n\trepresent arrays exceeding the 3-item limit of parallel representation.\n\tWe explored possible formats by which infants might represent a 4-object\n\tarray. Experiment 1 used a manual search paradigm to show that infants\n\tsuccessfully discriminated between arrays of 1 vs. 2, 2 vs. 3, and\n\t1 vs. 3 objects. However, infants failed to discriminate 1 vs. 4\n\tdespite the highly discriminable ratio, providing the strongest evidence\n\tto date for object-file representations underlying performance in\n\tthis task. Experiment 2 replicated this dramatic failure to discriminate\n\t1 from 4 in a second paradigm, a cracker choice task. We then showed\n\tthat infants in the choice task succeeded at choosing the larger\n\tquantity with 0 vs. 4 crackers and with 1 small vs. 4 large crackers.\n\tThese results suggest that while infants failed to represent 4 as\n\t\"exactly 4\", \"approximately 4\", \"3\", or as even as \"a plurality\",\n\tthey did represent information about the array, including the existence\n\tof a cracker or cracker-material and the size of the individual objects\n\tin the array.},\n doi = {10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.010},\n keywords = {16260263},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Feigenson, L.","Carey, S."],"key":"Feigenson2005a","id":"Feigenson2005a","bibbaseid":"feigenson-carey-onthelimitsofinfantsquantificationofsmallobjectarrays-2005","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["16260263"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://endress.org/publications/ansgar.bib","creationDate":"2020-01-31T01:09:11.751Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["16260263"],"search_terms":["limits","infants","quantification","small","object","arrays","feigenson","carey"],"title":"On the limits of infants' quantification of small object arrays.","year":2005,"dataSources":["SzgNB6yMASNi6tysA","xPGxHAeh3vZpx4yyE"]}