ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
Continuity in geometric intuition between humans and monkeys.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Geometric intuition is regarded as a hallmark of human intelligence. Humans hold a unique advantage in recognizing geometric shapes with Euclidean features (e.g., parallelism, symmetry) and have more sophisticated geometric concepts than nonhuman primates. A popular explanation for this human distinctiveness is that humans rely on discrete, symbolic features to encode geometric shapes, while other primates depend only on continuous perceptual features. The current study challenges this view. We used a match-to-sample task to test whether monkeys share geometric representations with humans. We found that monkeys combined high-level perceptual representations with abstract symbolic representations like humans, suggesting a graded, quantitative continuity in geometric intuition across species rather than a categorical, qualitative divide. Importantly, monkeys showed stronger reliance on symbolic features when processing rotated geometric shapes than preschoolers did with unrotated shapes, indicating that what appears to be symbolic representation may largely emerge from rotation-invariant encoding. These results challenge the hypothesis of human uniqueness in geometric intuition and suggest that its origins in humans are rooted in abstractions shared with primates.
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.