Qualitatively different coding of symbolic and nonsymbolic numbers in the human brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are symbolic and nonsymbolic numbers coded differently in the brain? Neuronal data indicate that overlap in numerical tuning curves is a hallmark of the approximate, analogue nature of nonsymbolic number representation. Consequently, patterns of fMRI activity should be more correlated when the representational overlap between two numbers is relatively high. In bilateral intraparietal sulci (IPS), for nonsymbolic numbers, the pattern of voxelwise correlations between pairs of numbers mirrored the amount of overlap in their tuning curves under the assumption of approximate, analogue coding. In contrast, symbolic numbers showed a flat field of modest correlations more consistent with discrete, categorical representation (no systematic overlap between numbers). Directly correlating activity patterns for a given number across formats (e.g., the numeral "6" with six dots) showed no evidence of shared symbolic and nonsymbolic number-specific representations. Overall (univariate) activity in bilateral IPS was well fit by the log of the number being processed for both nonsymbolic and symbolic numbers. IPS activity is thus sensitive to numerosity regardless of format; however, the nature in which symbolic and nonsymbolic numbers are encoded is fundamentally different.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".