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 2026-05-26 at 10.15
Viewpoint: Double standard—Why does the wellness industry get a free pass while Big Healthcare is treated as morally suspect?
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-4-2026-11_49_36-AM-2
‘You don’t understand Tolkien’: Skeptic Pope trolls tech giants about the exaggerated, risk-less benefits of AI
Screenshot 2025-07-30 at 10.48
Can gene editing eliminate Down syndrome? Scientists have done it in lab-grown cells
Screenshot-2026-06-04-at-12.05.08-PM
Cases of brain inflammation surge as U.S. measles pandemic approaches 2000
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-4-2026-01_27_58-PM
Viewpoint—N.A.D.+: Why Gwenyth Paltrow’s heralded anti-aging supplement doesn’t work
ChatGPT Image May 26, 2026, 08_42_17 AM (1)
Viewpoint: Greenpeace and poison: How environmental advocacy groups rely on compliant (and often ignorant) journalists to spread disinformation and spark litigation
Screenshot-2026-06-03-at-1.24.46-PM
Challenging anti-GMO disinformation: Why genetically-tweaked crops offer bushels of benefits
ChatGPT Image May 26, 2026, 08_21_36 AM
Limiting gender affirming interventions: Trump administration targets Texas even though it already bans youth access
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-2-2026-03_04_17-PM
Viewpoint: Why the hyper-promoted doping ‘enhanced games’ pseudo Olympics flopped
Screenshot 2026-06-04 at 12.43
Viewpoint: Doctors who are battling Ebola are incredulous that U.S. government is not utilizing specially designed emergency health units meant to fight virulent disease
glp menu logo outlined

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