New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

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

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe