Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41983455›Full record

ArticleeLife2026

Endogenous precision of the number sense.

Arthur Prat-Carrabin, Michael Woodford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Arthur Prat-CarrabinDepartment of Economics, Columbia University, New York, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6710-1488
Michael WoodfordDepartment of Economics, Columbia University, New York, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5485-5280

Funding

National Science Foundation SES DRMS 1949418
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The behavioral variability in psychophysical experiments and the stochasticity of sensory neurons have revealed the inherent imprecision in the brain's representations of environmental variables. Numerosity studies yield similar results, pointing to an imprecise 'number sense' in the brain. If the imprecision in representations reflects an optimal allocation of limited cognitive resources, as suggested by efficient-coding models, then it should depend on the context in which representations are elicited. Through an estimation task and a discrimination task, both involving numerosities, we show that the scale of subjects' imprecision increases, but sublinearly, with the width of the prior distribution from which numbers are sampled. This sublinear relation is notably different in the two tasks. The double dependence of the imprecision - both on the prior and on the task - is consistent with the optimization of a tradeoff between the expected reward, different for each task, and a resource cost of the encoding neurons' activity. Comparing the two tasks allows us to clarify the form of the resource constraint. Our results suggest that perceptual noise is endogenously determined, and that the precision of percepts varies both with the context in which they are elicited and with the observer's objective.

Indexed as

BrainMathematical ConceptsHumanscognitiondecision makingefficient codinghumanneurosciencenumerosityperception

Identifiers

PMID41983455
PMCPMC13082791

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.