Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41111299›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2025

The cognitive processing of numerical bases: a review of empirical evidence.

Silke M Göbel, Matthew Inglis, Julia Bahnmueller

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. A glossary for the cross-disciplinary study of numerals.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  4. When bases clash: cultural, cognitive and practical ramifications of numeration systems used in parallel.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Decade effects in mental addition.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. A solid base for scaling up: the structure of numeration systems.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Silke M GöbelDepartment of Psychology, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8845-6026
Matthew InglisCentre for Mathematical Cognition, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7617-4689
Julia BahnmuellerCentre for Mathematical Cognition, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9207-5074

Funding

Economic and Social Research CouncilResearch Council of Norway (Centre of Excellence scheme)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We review the empirical research on numerical bases in the context of spoken and written numerical expressions, visual number symbols and the mappings between these expressions and symbols. Most of this research has been carried out with speakers of Indo-European languages, which have decimal systems. Children typically acquire spoken numerical expressions before they learn associated visual number symbols, but numerical expressions are language-specific. The structure of the numerical expressions influences number word learning, with evidence that an explicit base-10 structure in the spoken numerical expressions (i.e.

Indexed as

CognitionLearningMathematical ConceptsMathematicsChildHumansLanguageartificial number symbolsbinarydecimalhexadecimalnumber word inversiontransparency of base

Identifiers

PMID41111299
PMCPMC12536281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.