MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Calendar calculation: A systematic review of 100 years of research

2025· review· en· W4414380581 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Desrosiers, David Gagnon, Alexia Ostrolenk, Alice Boutros, Boris C. Bernhardt, Valérie Courchesne, Laurent Mottron

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHistorical Astronomy and Related Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalHôpital Rivière-des-Prairies
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFonds de recherche du QuébecUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsAutismCognitionPriming (agriculture)NeuropsychologyVisual processingSystematic reviewNeuroimaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calendar calculation is the ability to answer rapidly to questions such as "What day of the week was May 12, 1978?" or "For which years is February 15 a Monday?" This ability is mastered by some "savant" autistic people with a surprising level of speed and accuracy. The quasi-specificity of calendar calculation in autism justifies its importance for understanding autistic information processing and learning mechanisms and is informative of certain extreme possibilities of human cognition. A registered (PROSPERO: CRD42021254855) systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines, generating 76 articles (1920–2023) documenting 105 calculators (95 M). We examine: the clinical characteristics of calculators, their cognitive performances, the development and the behavioral correlates to the ability, the empirical findings on calendar calculation, as well as the overall available brain imaging results during calendar tasks. Our findings indicate that calendar calculation is associated with autism and is typically acquired implicitly and in an autodidactic manner, often during school age. Participants tend to demonstrate superior cognitive abilities in their area of interest compared to other domains. When assessed using standardized tools, their performance generally falls within the low full-scale IQ range. 49.5 % had a total calculation range under 100 years. Distance and priming effect were not consistently found showing performance variability. Brain imaging results highlighted three different neural networks that were activated during calendar tasks: memory, visual and arithmetic. This knowledge enables us to establish the common characteristics of calendar calculators and identify gaps in knowledge related to the acquisition of calendar calculation. • We review characteristics of all published cases of calendar calculators. • Calendar calculation is a special ability documented in only 98 individuals over 100 years. • 89.8 % of the cases are male and 76 % have at least one feature of autism. • Calendar calculation is mostly self-learned and noticed during school age. • Information about the development of the ability is lacking.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscience & Biobehavioral ReviewsSame topicHistorical Astronomy and Related StudiesFrench-language works237,207