Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41686446›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026

Gradience as a cognitive principle for evaluating numerical notations.

Stephen Chrisomalis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Stephen ChrisomalisDepartment of Anthropology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202.ORCID 0000-0003-3636-7683

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

More than 100 historically, archaeologically and ethnographically attested numerical notations have been used over the past 5,000 y; however, because most of those systems are no longer used, experimental investigation is challenging. Prior research often assumes, rather than demonstrates, the inferiority of notations like Roman numerals. Gradience is a principle whereby the length of numeral phrases correlates with the magnitude of the numbers being represented. In general, but inconsistently, larger numbers require more signs, just as larger sets of abstract dot patterns occupy more space. This study compares the gradience of 13 numerical notations varying in phylogenetic family, linguistic family, and structural properties, using two indices, inversion (how often N + 1 requires fewer signs than N) and jitter (the mean length difference between successive numbers). Place value systems are highly gradient; i.e., their length indexes numerical magnitude more accurately than other systems. The relationship between the structural properties of notations and the two indices of jitter and inversion is complex. Next, a cultural-evolutionary analysis compares the older additive Roman numerals to the eventually predominant subtractive variant (e.g., XIX = 19). Subtractive Roman numerals are more concise and have a lower jitter than additive ones, but at the cost of a significantly higher inversion ratio. This analysis permits the evaluation of cultural-evolutionary hypotheses grounded in the representational properties of attested notations, even when cognitive tests are not feasible. Several avenues for future experimental investigation using attested or constructed notations of varying properties are proposed.

Indexed as

CognitionMathematicsHumansanthropologycognitive technologycomparative historycultural evolutionnumerals

Identifiers

PMID41686446
PMCPMC12912985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.