The distinction that Koriat & Goldsmith have drawn between laboratory and naturalistic research is largely valid, but the metaphor they have chosen to characterize the latter may not be optimal. The “correspondence” approach is vulnerable on conceptual grounds and is not applicable to significant portions of empirical research.

The type of processing of numerical dimensions varies greatly and is governed by context. Considering this flexibility in tandem with a fuzzy demarcation line between automatic and intentional processes, it is suggested that testing the effect of notation should not be confined to automatic processing, in particular to passive viewing. Recent behavioral data satisfying the authors' stipulations reveal a considerable, though perhaps not exclusive, core of common abstract processing.

To Understand a Cat: Methodology and Philosophy SAM S. RAKOVER Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 2007253 pages, ISBN: 9789027252067 (hbk); $142.00In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates famously distinguishes...