Why is it easy for our brains to estimate four things, but not five or more?

Why is it easy for our brain to estimate four things, but not five?
Credit: Midjourney/ Heenan

The limits of the human ability to estimate large quantities have puzzled many generations of scientists. In an 1871 Nature article, economist and logician William Stanley Jevons described his investigations into his own counting skills and concluded “that the number five is beyond the limit of perfect discrimination, by some persons at least.”

Some researchers have argued that the brain uses a single estimation system, one that is simply less precise for higher numbers. Others hypothesize that the performance discrepancy arises from there being two separate neuronal systems to quantify objects. But experiments have failed to determine which model is correct.
Then, a team of researchers had a rare opportunity to record the activity of individual neurons inside the brains of people who were awake. All were being treated for seizures at the University Hospital Bonn in Germany, and had microelectrodes inserted in their brains in preparation for surgery.
Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.
“The higher the preferred number, the less selective these neurons were,” says co-author Andreas Nieder, an animal physiologist at the University of Tubingen in Germany. For example, neurons specific to three would only fire in response to that number, whereas neurons that prefer eight would respond to eight but also to seven and nine. As a result, people made more mistakes when trying to quantify a larger number of objects.
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-03-13-at-12.14.04-PM
The FDA wants to make many popular prescription drugs OTC—a great idea. Here’s why it’s unlikely to happen
Screenshot-2026-05-04-at-12.54.32-PM
How Utah became the country’s supplement capital  — and a haven for unregulated, ineffective and fake products
Screenshot-2026-04-20-at-2.26.27-PM
Viewpoint — Food-fear world: The latest activist scientists campaign: Cancer-causing additives
Screenshot-PM-24
Viewpoint: The herbicide glyphosate isn’t perfect. Banning it would be far worse.
images
The never-ending GMO debate: Pros and cons
Screenshot-2026-05-01-at-11.56.24-AM
‘Science moves forward when people are willing to think differently’: Memories of DNA maverick Craig Venter
Screenshot-2026-04-30-at-2.19.37-PM
5 myths about summer dehydration that could damage your health — or even kill you
Screenshot-2026-04-03-at-11.15.51-AM
Paraben panic: How a flawed study, media hype, and chemophobia convinced the public of the danger of one of the safest classes of preservatives
bigstock opioids on chalkboard with rol
GLP podcast: 'Safe injection sites': enabling drug addiction or saving lives?
79d03212-2508-45d0-b427-8e9743ff6432
Viewpoint: The Casey Means hustle—Wellness woo opportunism dressed up as medical wisdom
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.