Nonsymbolic and symbolic representations of null numerosity

Symbolic representations of infinity: the impact of notation and numerical syntax

Past research indicates that concepts of infinity are not fully understood. In countably infinite sets, infinity is presumed to be perceived as larger than any finite natural number. This study explored whether symbolic representations of infinity are processed as such through contrasts with Arabic and verbal written numbers. Comparisons between the infinity word and number words were responded to faster than comparisons of two number words, but not when the infinity symbol was solely compared to Arabic numbers. Moreover, infinity comparisons yielded distance-like effects, suggesting that infinity (both word and symbol) can be misconceived as a "natural number" closer to larger numbers than small ones. These findings demonstrate difficulty perceiving the physically smallest stimulus (∞) as the upper end-value and seem to reflect a limited understanding of symbolic forms of infinity among adults. They further highlight the impact of notation and numerical syntax on how we process symbolic numerical information.

Single-neuron representation of nonsymbolic and symbolic number zero in the human medial temporal lobe

The number zero holds a special status among numbers, indispensable for developing a comprehensive number theory.1,2,3,4 Despite its importance in mathematics, the neuronal foundation of zero in the human brain is unknown. We conducted single-neuron recordings in neurosurgical patients5,6,7 while they made judgments involving nonsymbolic number representations (dot numerosity), including the empty set, and symbolic numbers (Arabic numerals), including numeral zero. Neurons showed responsiveness to either the empty set or numeral zero, but not both. Neuronal activity to zero in both nonsymbolic and symbolic formats exhibited a numerical distance effect, indicating that zero representations are integrated together with countable numerosities and positive integers at the low end of the number line.8,9 A boundary in neuronal coding existed between the nonsymbolic empty set and small numerosities, correlating with the relative difficulty in discriminating numerosity zero behaviorally. Conversely, no such boundary was found for symbolic zero activity, suggesting that symbolic representations integrate zero with other numerals along the number line, reconciling its outlier role. The status of zero as a special nonsymbolic numerical quantity is reflected in the activity of neurons in the human brain, which seems to serve as a scaffold for more advanced representations of zero as a symbolic number.

Symbolic and non-symbolic representations of numerical zero in the human brain

Representing the quantity zero as a symbolic concept is considered a unique achievement of abstract human thought.1,2 To conceptualize zero, one must abstract away from the (absence of) sensory evidence to construct a representation of numerical absence: creating "something" out of "nothing."2,3,4 Previous investigations of the neural representation of natural numbers reveal distinct numerosity-selective neural populations that overlap in their tuning curves with adjacent numerosities.5,6 Importantly, a component of this neural code is thought to be invariant across non-symbolic and symbolic numerical formats.7,8,9,10,11 Although behavioral evidence indicates that zero occupies a place at the beginning of this mental number line,12,13,14 in humans zero is also associated with unique behavioral and developmental profiles compared to natural numbers,4,15,16,17 suggestive of a distinct neural basis for zero. We characterized the neural representation of zero in the human brain by employing two qualitatively different numerical tasks18,19 in concert with magnetoencephalography (MEG) recordings. We assay both neural representations of non-symbolic numerosities (dot patterns), including zero (empty sets), and symbolic numerals, including symbolic zero. Our results reveal that neural representations of zero are situated along a graded neural number line shared with other natural numbers. Notably, symbolic representations of zero generalized to predict non-symbolic empty sets. We go on to localize abstract representations of numerical zero to posterior association cortex, extending the purview of parietal cortex in human numerical cognition to encompass representations of zero.10,20.

Sometimes nothing is simply nothing: Automatic processing of empty sets

Previous work using the numerical comparison task has shown that an empty set, the nonsymbolic manifestation of zero, can be represented as the smallest quantity of the numerical magnitude system. In this study, we examined whether an empty set can be represented as such under conditions of automatic processing in which deliberate processing of stimuli magnitudes is not required by the task. In Experiment 1, participants performed physical and numerical comparisons of empty sets (i.e., empty frames) and of other numerosities presented as framed arrays of 1 to 9 dots. The physical sizes of the frames varied within pairs. Both tasks revealed a size congruity effect (SCE) for comparisons of non-empty sets. In contrast, comparisons to empty sets produced an inverted SCE in the physical comparison task, whereas no SCE was found for comparisons to empty sets in the numerical comparison task. In Experiment 2, participants performed an area comparison task using the same stimuli as Experiment 1 to examine the effect of visual cues on the automatic processing of empty sets. The results replicated the findings of the physical comparison task in Experiment 1. Taken together, our findings indicate that empty sets are not perceived as "zero," but rather as "nothing," when processed automatically. Hence, the perceptual dominance of empty sets seems to play a more important role under conditions of automatic processing, making it harder to abstract the numerical meaning of zero from empty sets.

The approximate number system represents rational numbers: The special case of an empty set

We agree with Clarke and Beck that the approximate number system represents rational numbers, and we demonstrate our support by highlighting the case of the empty set - the non-symbolic manifestation of zero. It is particularly interesting because of its perceptual and semantic uniqueness, and its exploration reveals fundamental new insights about how numerical information is represented.