Exact number concepts are limited to the verbal count range
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Previous findings suggest that mentally representing exact numbers larger than four depends on a verbal count routine (e.g., “one, two, three . . .”). However, these findings are controversial because they rely on comparisons across radically different languages and cultures. We tested the role of language in number concepts within a single population—the Tsimane’ of Bolivia—in which knowledge of number words varies across individual adults. We used a novel data-analysis model to quantify the point at which participants ( N = 30) switched from exact to approximate number representations during a simple numerical matching task. The results show that these behavioral switch points were bounded by participants’ verbal count ranges; their representations of exact cardinalities were limited to the number words they knew. Beyond that range, they resorted to numerical approximation. These results resolve competing accounts of previous findings and provide unambiguous evidence that large exact number concepts are enabled by language.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 57 · Cited by 26
- Authors
- Pitt, B., Gibson, E., & Piantadosi, S. T.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pitt, Benjamin
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2022-02-08
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 371-381
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- PMC
- PMC9096449
- OpenAlex
- W4210910238
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 3.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (1760874)
- James S. McDonnell Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Keywords
- approximate number system, numerals, Tsimane, cardinality, numerical cognition
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cognition, Humans, Language, Language Development, Mathematics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review