ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2019
Number, time, and space are not singularly represented: Evidence against a common magnitude system beyond early childhood.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Neural networks underlying magnitude perception: a specific meta-analysis of fMRI studies.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Pooled it
- Gradient Organization of Space, Time, and Numbers in the Brain: A Meta-analysis of Neuroimaging Studies.Neuropsychology review · 2024Pooled it
- Extent of magnitude representation deficit and relationship with arithmetic skills in children with 22q11.2DS.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Trial
- Temporal momentum: an online replication and beyond.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Symmetrical and asymmetrical distortions in time and numerosity perception induced by chunked stimuli.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- A framework for uniting space and time in the mind and brain.Frontiers in cognition · 2025Article
- Duration, numerosity and length processing in healthy ageing and Parkinson's disease.European journal of ageing · 2024Article
- Right frontal HD-tDCS reveals causal involvement of time perception networks in temporal processing of concepts.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Children and adults rely on different heuristics for estimation of durations.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Can a Common Magnitude System Theory Explain the Brain Representation of Space, Time, and Number?Noro psikiyatri arsivi · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our ability to represent temporal, spatial, and numerical information is critical for understanding the world around us. Given the prominence of quantitative representations in the natural world, numerous cognitive, neurobiological, and developmental models have been proposed as a means of describing how we track quantity. One prominent theory posits that time, space, and number are represented by a common magnitude system, or a common neural locus (i.e., Bonn & Cantlon in Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29(1/2), 149-173, 2012; Cantlon, Platt, & Brannon in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(2), 83-91, 2009; Meck & Church in Animal Behavior Processes, 9(3), 320, 1983; Walsh in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 483-488, 2003). Despite numerous similarities in representations of time, space, and number, an increasing body of literature reveals striking dissociations in how each quantity is processed, particularly later in development. These findings have led many researchers to consider the possibility that separate systems may be responsible for processing each quantity. This review will analyze evidence in favor of a common magnitude system, particularly in infancy, which will be tempered by counter evidence, the majority of which comes from experiments with children and adult participants. After reviewing the current data, we argue that although the common magnitude system may account for quantity representations in infancy, the data do not provide support for this system throughout the life span. We also identify future directions for the field and discuss the likelihood of the developmental divergence model of quantity representation, like that of Newcombe (Ecological Psychology, 2, 147-157, 2014), as a more plausible account of quantity development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30684249What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.