ArticlePsychological review2022
The cultural origins of symbolic number.
Article in Psychological review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diverse mathematical knowledge among indigenous Amazonians.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Pooled it
- Exploring the Neural Substrates of Number Sense: A Perspective on Genetics, Behaviour and Neural Circuity.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Review
- Time Tools.Topics in cognitive science · 2026Article
- Learning-induced reorganization of number neurons and emergence of numerical representations in a biologically inspired neural network.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Verbal counting and the timing of number acquisition in an indigenous Amazonian group.PloS one · 2022Article
- Spatial concepts of number, size, and time in an indigenous culture.Science advances · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
It is popular in psychology to hypothesize that representations of exact number are innately determined-in particular, that biology has endowed humans with a system for manipulating quantities which forms the primary representational substrate for our numerical and mathematical concepts. While this perspective has been important for advancing empirical work in animal and child cognition, here we examine six natural predictions of strong numerical nativism from a multidisciplinary perspective, and find each to be at odds with evidence from anthropology and developmental science. In particular, the history of number reveals characteristics that are inconsistent with biological determinism of numerical concepts, including a lack of number systems across some human groups and remarkable variability in the form of numerical systems that do emerge. Instead, this literature highlights the importance of economic and social factors in constructing fundamentally new cognitive systems to achieve culturally specific goals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.