Quick, How Many?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Scientists estimate that 3 to 6 percent of the population may be unable to count objects quickly. By isolating the brain’s counting region, they are figuring out just how people calculate the number of items present.

The problem in identifying the precise region is that counting typically involves language, and the language areas also come online when the brain enumerates. To keep them offline during experiments, postdoctoral researcher Fulvia Castelli of the California Institute of Technology used colors. That was when she found that the intraparietal sulcus — a long sliver of tissue in the back of the brain — tabulates how many and not how much. Volunteers were shown a series of blue and green flashes of light filling rectangles on a video chessboard. When the colors appeared in isolated squares the sulcus was activated, but when the colors were strung together in a row it was not.

A real-life analogy might be deciding quickly which checkout line at a grocery store is shorter. Some people tote up the individuals standing in line, others create a mental representation of how long the queue actually is. People with “dyscalculia” cannot develop that mental map, forcing them into slow, deliberate tallying. Castelli hopes to study ways to strengthen the representational ability.

SA Mind Vol 17 Issue 3This article was published with the title “Quick, How Many?” in SA Mind Vol. 17 No. 3 (), p. 7
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0606-7b

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe