Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group

Science

Volumn 306, Issue 5695, 2004, Pages 499-503

  Pica, Pierre ^a   Lemer, Cathy ^b   Izard, Véronique ^b   Dehaene, Stanislas ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS 8   (France)

^b INSERM   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; DIGITAL ARITHMETIC; NUMERICAL METHODS;

AMAZONIAN INDIGENE GROUP; LANGUAGE-BASED COUNTING SYSTEMS; NUMERICAL COGNITION;

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS;

ANTHROPOLOGY;

ARITHMETIC; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; COGNITION; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; MATHEMATICS; NEUROPSYCHOLOGY; NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCIENCE; SOUTH AMERICA;

ADULT; BRAZIL; CHILD; COGNITION; CULTURE; HUMANS; INDIANS, SOUTH AMERICAN; LANGUAGE; MATHEMATICS; VOCABULARY;

EID: 5644298608     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1102085     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. J. R. Hurford, Language and Number (Blackwell, Oxford, 1987).
2. N. Chomsky, Language and the Problems of Knowledge (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988), p. 169.
3. S. Dehaene, The Number Sense (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1997).
4. C. R. Gallistel, R. Gelman, Cognition 44, 43 (1992).
5. S. Dehaene, G. Dehaene-Lambertz, L. Cohen, Trends Neurosci. 21, 355 (1998).
6. L. Feigenson, S. Dehaene, E. Spelke, Trends Cognit. Sci. 8, 307 (2004).
7. P. Bloom, How Children Learn the Meanings of Words (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000).
8. H. Wiese, Numbers, Language, and the Human Mind (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2003).
9. K. Wynn, Cognition 36, 155 (1990).
10. S. Carey, Science 282, 641 (1998).
11. E. Spelke, S. Tsivkin, in Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development, M. Bowerman, S. C. Levinson, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001), pp. 70-100.
12. S. Dehaene, E. Spelke, P. Pinel, R. Stanescu, S. Tsivkin, Science 284, 970 (1999).
13. K. Wynn, Nature 358, 749 (1992).
14. G. M. Sulkowski, M. D. Hauser, Cognition 79, 239 (2001).
15. A. Nieder, E. K. Miller, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 7457 (2004).
16. E. M. Brannon, H. S. Terrace, J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Processes 26, 31 (2000).
17. E. S. Spelke, S. Tsivkin, Cognition 78, 45 (2001).
18. C. Lemer, S. Dehaene, E. Spelke, L. Cohen, Neuropsychologia 41, 1942 (2003).
19. S. Dehaene, L. Cohen, Neuropsychologia 29, 1045 (1991).
20. H. Barth, N. Kanwisher, E. Spelke, Cognition 86, 201 (2003).
21. J. Whalen, C. R. Gallistel, R. Gelman, Psychol. Sci. 10, 130 (1999).
22. B. Butterworth, The Mathematical Brain (Macmillan, London, 1999).
23. P. Gordon, Science 306, 496 (2004); published online 19 August 2004 (10.1126/science.1094492).
24. C. Strömer, Die sprache der Mundurukú (Verlag der Internationalen Zeitschrift "Anthropos," Vienna, 1932).
25. M. Crofts, Aspectos da língua Mundurukú (Summer Institute of Linguistics, Brasilia, 1985).
26. See supporting data on Science Online.
27. T. Pollmann, C. Jansen, Cognition 59, 219 (1996).
28. R. S. Moyer, T. K. Landauer, Nature 215, 1519 (1967).
29. P. B. Buckley, C. B. Gillman, J. Exp. Psychol. 103, 1131 (1974).
30. Comparison performance remained far above chance in two independent sets of trials where the two sets were equalized either on intensive parameters (such as dot size) or on extensive parameters (such as total luminance) [see (26)]. Thus, subjects did not base their responses on a single non-numerical parameter. Performance was, however, worse for extensive-matched pairs (88.3% versus 76.3% correct, P < 0.0001). We do not know the origins of this effect; but it is likely that, like Western subjects, the Mundurukú estimate number via some simple relation such as the total occupied screen area divided by the average space around the items, which can be subject to various biases [see (32)].
31. Performance remained above chance for both intensive-matched and extensive-matched sets (89.5 and 81.8% correct, respectively; both P < 0.0001). Although the difference between stimulus sets was again significant (P < 0.0001), it was identical in Mundurukú and French subjects. Furthermore, performance was significantly above chance for a vast majority of items (44/51) and was never significantly below chance, making it unlikely that participants were using a simple shortcut other than mental addition. For instance, they did not merely compare n1 with n3 or n2 with n3, because when n1 and n2 were both smaller than n3, they still discerned accurately whether their sum was larger or smaller than the proposed number n3, even when both differed by only 30% (76.3 and 67.4% correct, respectively; both P < 0.005).
32. J. Allik, T. Tuulmets, Percept. Psychophys. 49, 303 (1991).
33. This work was developed as part of a larger project on the nature of quantification and functional categories developed jointly with the linguistic section of the Department of Anthropology of the National Museum of Rio de Janeiro and the Unité Mixte de Recherche 7023 of the CNRS, with the agreement of Fundação Nacional do Índio (FUNAI) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológíco (CNPQ) of Brazil. It was supported by INSERM, CNRS, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (P.P.), and a McDonnell Foundation centennial fellowship (S.D.). We thank E. Spelke and M. Piazza for discussions, A. Ramos for constant advice, and V. Poxõ, C. Tawé, and F. de Assis for help in testing. Movies illustrating the difficulty of counting for the Mundurukú can be viewed at http://video.rap.prd.fr/videotheques/cnrs/grci.html.