Brains Hard-Wired for Math

mcgrew writes "New Scientist is reporting that "non-human primates really can understand the meaning of numerals." The small study of two rhesus monkeys reveals that cells in their brains respond selectively to specific number values — regardless of whether the amount is represented by dots on a screen or an Arabic numeral. For example, a given brain cell in the monkey will respond to the number three, but not the number one. The results suggest that individual cells in human brains might also have a fine-tuned preference for specific numerical values." The report itself is online at PLoS Biology, Semantic Associations between Signs and Numerical Categories in the Prefrontal Cortex."

First post

[Harmonious Botch (921977)]

My brain has a fine-tuned preference for the number 'one'.

Ethics

[mrbluze (1034940)]

Readers be at ease. No cute furry animals were used in the research: They shaved the monkeys and dressed them up to look like [inser favourite politician] first.

Re:

[Soporific (595477)]

What a marvelous first post referencing a first post while being understated. :)

~S

One is boring. Try two.

[CarpetShark (865376)]

My brain has a fine-tuned preference for the number 'one'.

Strange... I've always favoured two. Preferably twins ;)

Re:

[hackstraw (262471)]

i think probing monkeys is what maths all about, seems to be populur among the human populos

Actually, this seems to be popular with European based human monkeys. Psychology does not seem that interesting with say Asians and Africans like it does with these Europeans. But then again, I'm a european based monkey and I like psychology.

From the summary:

For example, a given brain cell in the monkey will respond to the number three, but not the number one.

One thing that I like about psychology is that it is a _

and there you see!

[by Anonymous Coward]

42 really is the answer!

Re:

[aliquis (678370)]

We already knew that, however we need to take their brains out to see if we can find parts of the question in there.

Numbers or numerals?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it more likely that the brain responds to numbers, and is also able to learn an association between numerals and numbers?

To say that nonhuman primates respond to numerals makes it sound like they evolved to benefit from written language, which would be kinda weird, ya know.

Re:

[Wordsmith (183749)]

That they can associated numerals with numbers IS to say that they find numerals meaningful. It's to say that they're capable of that level of abstraction, when it comes to numerical values.

Re:

[cp.tar (871488)]

That they can associated numerals with numbers IS to say that they find numerals meaningful. It's to say that they're capable of that level of abstraction, when it comes to numerical values.

Oh, come on.

Unless they're proposing that Arab numerals are directly, non-symbolically related to the numerical concepts they represent, the only thing they've proved is that yay, primates are capable of learning some symbols.

If the same neurons react to quantity(3) and to symbol(3) with no previous training, then this discovery will revolutionize our schooling systems, not to mention cognitive science, semiotics and linguistics.
If, on the other hand, this included some training beforehand, then I fail

Re:Numbers or numerals?

[jandersen (462034)]

It isn't surprising that monkeys can understand an abstraction like 'numbers' - a brain is a neural network, and neural nets are 'abstraction engines' by definition. Consider the nature of abstractions: an abstract concept is one that describes a set of properties that are common to a class of objects. A number, for example, is the property that is common to all sets that are isomorphic in the category of sets (to spell it out: what is common to 'five apples', 'five oranges', 'five cows', ...? The number 5, of course). And what is it a neural net does? It learns to recognise patterns that are shared by all the 'objects' it 'sees' (if you will excuse the metaphor) - in other words, it creates an abstraction.

The numbers 1 and 0, although fundamental to our numerical notation, are not really 'interesting' in nature - 0 is simply 'nothing' and 1 is 'anything', they sort of fade into the background. Being able to recognise other, small numbers can be useful, however. Two fruits is one for me and one for you; if you have four children, but can only see three, then you should go looking for the last one, etc etc.

This is the way evolution works - nothing evolves with any purpose; things evolve because there are new traits that turn out to be beneficial in the given environment. And then, down the line, it sometimes also turns out that a trait that evolved at some point in the past allows the organism to do something entirely new in a new environment. So the monkeys didn't evolve to benefit from written language, it turned out that this is one of the things their brains can learn. The real question here is: Why did brains evolve - and that all starts with biofilms ;-)

Re:

[mblase (200735)]

A number, for example, is the property that is common to all sets that are isomorphic in the category of sets (to spell it out: what is common to 'five apples', 'five oranges', 'five cows', ...? The number 5, of course).

True, but that's not the impressive thing. The article points out:

The small study of two rhesus monkeys reveals that cells in their brains respond selectively to specific number values - regardless of whether the amount is represented by dots on a screen or an Arabic numeral.

The "numeral" a

Not just math

[biocute (936687)]

Bottom of the friendly article: The results are not the first to suggest there may be specific brain cells tied to individual concepts. In 2005 researchers discovered that individual neurons become activated by images of specific celebrities such as Jennifer Aniston and Halle Berry.

So I guess it is up to individuals to decide how best to utilize limited brain cells. I'm pretty sure that those monkeys can tied a couple of their brain cells to other concepts given enough training.

Obvious

[Stoutlimb (143245)]

In other news, reality is hardwired for math.

Seriously, why wouldn't a brain, which exists to process data in one form or another, respond to math positively at some level? Geometry is math, and that is hardwired in our brains to a high level. Any brain that has to process spacial information in any way must be predisposed to math.

Re:

[Cassius Corodes (1084513)]

Spatial reasoning is separate from mathematical/logical reasoning. Plus maths is not required for practical geometry or navigation.

Re:

[William Robinson (875390)]

In other news, reality is hardwired for math.

1.618? [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[TheLink (130905)]

Sure, but:
1) Why one brain cell per number?
2) What's the max number before the primate stops allocating a brain cell to numbers? Does that vary a lot on a per individual basis? Does that vary significantly on a per species basis? Is there a correlation with the perceived intelligence of the individual?

Re:Obvious

[Lemmy Caution (8378)]

I agree...

I can't stand the over-use of the expression "hard-wired" when the data only indicates something that is universal. It implies that the structures responsible would develop in that function no matter what, without the experience in the world of, for example, things in sets-of-three, etc.

The data really supports dynamical systems models of cognitive development [indiana.edu] more than pure innatist ones. Just look at what the brain of someone blind from birth develops into, absent visual input.

I highly recommend the books of Andy Clark, particularly his "Being There," as an introduction that starts to explain just how flawed the seemingly harmless phrase "hard-wired" is.

title wrong

[weak* (1137369)]

I've co-taught an undergraduate mathematics course. Based on this experience and many others, I assure you the human mind is not hard-wired for math.

Re:title wrong

[snl2587 (1177409)]

Good point. While brains may be wired for numbers, I highly doubt that any brain is hardwired for differential equations.

I really like seven...

[feepness (543479)]

For some reason I get aroused when I hear the number seven. Especially when it's followed by "of nine".

music and singing

[xPsi (851544)]

A colleague of mine once pointed out that the ability of most humans to sing (speak for yourself!), play music, and even distinguish different tunes implies an intrinsic hard-wired affinity for numbers since music depends on very specific ratios of frequencies to be gauged and produced accurately real time. You are in effect doing a Fourier transform of the music, finding the strongest peaks, and reproducing them and/or scaling them by fairly exact amounts (in spite of a broad spectrum of other frequencies present creating timbre). On top of that, one is usually doing this accurately in the context of much, much lower frequencies (i.e. rhythms/tempos on the scale of Hertz rather than "tones" on the scale of 100s of Hertz) as well. Of course, not all music is western, 12 tone, tuned the same, etc., etc. etc. But I think there may still be a (fairly well understood??) psycho-acoustic music-math connection in there.

Re:

[xPsi (851544)]

Specific intervals are pleasing largely because of the way their overtones line up; that's why pretty much every music system has a third, a fifth and an octave. I'd bet that producing music is done based on memory and calibration, the same way many other actions are done; no math involved.

Point well taken. As you probably know, that what is considered a pleasing tone is very culturally dependent. Most of the world's music involves what to "western ears" sounds microtonal -- but perhaps 3rds, 5ths, and octaves are universal, I'm not sure. IF this were true, it would signal to me that there IS a hardware component to at least detecting (and reproducing) certain mathematical ratios. On the other hand, most of western music is mean tempered and only approximates perfect 3rds, and 5ths. Nev

This just in!

[martin-boundary (547041)]

Perceptrons hardwired for mathematics!

In a far reaching experiment, a generic group of second year CS students trained a neural network classifier on pairs of images consisting of a number of dots, and a corresponding arabic symbol. The students trained their perceptron [wikipedia.org] on four pairs of images representing the numbers 1 through 4. The successfully trained AI was then shown pairs of dots and numerals and identified incorrect pairings. An interesting feature of the experiment is that some of the neural net

Personal Experience

[Bemopolis (698691)]

Based on my experiences teaching science classes, not ALL brains are hard-wired for math.

What about the Pirahã?

[settrans (902777)]

The notion that primates are genetically predisposed to have mathematical ability is tenuous. Why should we believe there is some neural circuitry designed explicitly for math? First of all, all studies teaching non-human primates to count involve extensive training of the primates; it doesn't just "click" for them. This would suggest that it is a struggle for them to learn the concept of counting and mathematics. (Of course it doesn't help that TFA is extremely light on the gory details of the methodology and results of the study.)

Secondly, the Pirahã people [wikipedia.org] of Amazonia do not have numbers or counting. Professor Everett, despite months of instruction, was unable to make any progress in teaching them how to count. The Pirahã themselves were highly motivated learners, as they didn't want to be ripped off in trade by visiting merchants, but nevertheless, they had no success in learning the most basic concepts of math. Indeed the Pirahã language has no numerals, and is claimed to have no quantifiers, either.

Relevant readings:
Everett, D.L. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology, 46, 621-646.
Hauser, M.D., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, W.T. (2002) The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569-1579.
Pinker, S. & Jackendoff, R. (in press). The components of language: What's specific to language, and What's specific to humans? In M.H. Christiansen, C. Collins & S. Edelman (Eds.), Language universals. New York: Oxford University Press.

Re:What about the Pirahã?

[svunt (916464)]

Did you just add footnotes to actually back up your claim on a slashdot discussion? *rubs eyes* You're going to destroy this site's reputation.

Re:What about the Pirahã?

[Frozen Void (831218)]

these were non-numbered footnotes so they don't count.

Obviously

[mike260 (224212)]

Well of course the PRNGs in their little monkey brains are seeded differently. Otherwise, an infinite number of them sat at typewriters would all type exactly the same gibberish, and we wouldn't have any Shakespeare.

Close Enough for Hand Grenades

[pipingguy (566974)]

They're not wired for exact sums, they're wired for approximation. Once you can convince people of their ignorance of math they'll fly off into all kinds of logically-predicted directions of randomness. BINGO! People do not understand math! Simple.

Refer to previous article

[unitron (5733)]

"non-human primates really can understand the meaning of numerals."

Good! Let's fire Diebold and hire them to count the ballots instead.

monkey professor

[dancingmad (128588)]

I wish they'd teach me math then; considering my college math grades, I'm worse off than these monkeys.

Infinity

[flyingfsck (986395)]

So, don't think of infinity. Your skull will explode...

Re:binary

[ExploHD (888637)]

Well, there are 11 kinds of people, those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Re:binary

[Dr. Eggman (932300)]

And those who can't count.

Re:binary

[mike260 (224212)]

There actually are 11 kinds of people - one kind doesn't get the joke, one kind does, and the other nine are sick to death of hearing it trotted out at every bloody opportunity.

Re:binary

[JustOK (667959)]

Its true that there are two types of people:
1) those that can infer and extrapolate from incomplete data

Re:

[cheater512 (783349)]

Thats Base 1. :)

111 = 3
1111111111 = 10
etc...

Re:binary

[Anpheus (908711)]

No such thing as 'base 1.'

You're thinking of Peano arithmetic. (Defined by nought, 0, and the successor function, S, and a few other axioms. You define 1 as "0S" and 2 as "0SS", etc.)

But unary is still a common name for it

[tepples (727027)]

No such thing as 'base 1.'

You're thinking of Peano arithmetic.

Unary is a common name [wikipedia.org] for the number representation of Peano arithmetic. It also shows up in data compression [wikipedia.org], where it tells how many bits a gamma-coded number [wikipedia.org] contains or the most significant bits of a Rice-coded number [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[Torvaun (1040898)]

But 00 and 01 make up 10 values. Kind of like 0-9 being 10 values. The shirt makes perfect sense as is.

Re:binary

[marcansoft (727665)]

Well, there are 11 kinds of people, those who understand unary, and those who don't.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

For example, a given brain cell in the monkey will respond to the number three

So I guess we're not wired binary?

3 is just our interpretation of the result. As far as we know they could be interpreting the values in unary (the earliest human system) or worse, octal. Stupid monkeys. Don't they know that hexadecimal would make their lives much easier?

Re:Base?

[mdemonic (988470)]

# I wonder if the brains are wired for specific bases, like base 10.

We like it because we have ten fingers. Other civilizations have had other number systems though. The Mayans used base 20, since they had 20 fingers

Re:Base?

[TheLink (130905)]

Nah the Mayan probably wore open toed sandals ;).

Re:Base?

[cheater512 (783349)]

There was one which used that system but it died out after the first generation. ;)

Re:

[SQLGuru (980662)]

I can count to 1023 on my fingers.....I especially like the number 132.

http://www.intuitor.com/counting/ [intuitor.com]

Layne

Re:Base?

[xPsi (851544)]

I wonder if the brains are wired for specific bases, like base 10.

It is possible, but I'm guessing this is mostly a matter of familiarity and convention. For example, Baylonians used a sexagesimal [wikipedia.org] (base 60 -- a.k.a. "thanks for frickin' 360 degrees guys"...) system. As many programmers know (do I even need to say it on ./?), base 2, 8, and 16 can become second nature pretty quickly with some practice and application.

Re:Base?

[Yoozer (1055188)]

Most geeks will however have trouble with base 3.

Re:

[Briareos (21163)]

I wonder if the brains are wired for specific bases, like base 10.

Well, if we're all wired to the same bases that would mean "all your base are belong to us" is indeed true... *shudders*

np: Bonobo & Amon Tobin - I'll Have the Waldorf Salad (Verbal Remixes & Collaborations)