Abstract
HUMAN infants can discriminate between different small numbers of items1–4, and can determine numerical equivalence across perceptual modalities5,6. This may indicate the possession of true numerical concepts1,4–7. Alternatively, purely perceptual discriminations may underlie these abilities8,9. This debate addresses the nature of subitization, the ability to quantify small numbers of items without conscious counting10,11. Subitization may involve the holistic recognition of canonical perceptual patterns that do not reveal ordinal relationships between the numbers12, or may instead be an iterative or 'counting' process that specifies these numerical relationships4,13. Here I show that 5-month-old infants can calculate the results of simple arithmetical operations on small numbers of items. This indicates that infants possess true numerical concepts, and suggests that humans are innately endowed with arithmetical abilities. It also suggests that subitization is a process that encodes ordinal information, not a pattern-recognition process yielding non-numerical percepts.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Relevant articles
Open Access articles citing this article.
-
Rethinking how children individuate objects: spatial indexicals in early development
Synthese Open Access 24 August 2023
-
From Maximal Intersubjectivity to Objectivity: An Argument from the Development of Arithmetical Cognition
Topoi Open Access 30 December 2022
-
Intuitive physics learning in a deep-learning model inspired by developmental psychology
Nature Human Behaviour Open Access 11 July 2022
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Starkey, P. & Cooper, R. G. Science 210, 1033–1035 (1980).
Strauss, M. S. & Curtis, L. E. Child Dev. 52, 1146–1152 (1981).
Antell, S. & Keating, D. P. Child Dev. 54, 695–701 (1983).
van Loosbroek, E. & Smitsman, A. W. Devl Psychol. 26, 916–922 (1990).
Starkey, P., Spelke, E. S. & Gelman, R. Science 222, 179–181 (1983).
Starkey, P., Spelke, E. S. & Gelman, R. Cognition 36, 97–127 (1990).
Wynn, K. Mind Lang. (in the press).
Davis, H., Albert, M. & Barron, R. W. Science 228, 1222 (1985).
Cooper, R. G. in Origins of Cognitive Skills 157–192 (ed. Sophian, C.) (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1984).
Chi, M. T. H. & Klahr, D. J. exp. Child Psychol. 19, 434–439 (1975).
Silverman, I. W. & Rose, A. P. Devl Psychol. 16, 539–540 (1980).
Mandler, G. & Shebo, B. J. J. exp. Psychol. Gen. 11, 1–22 (1982).
Gallistel, C. R. The Organization of Learning 343–348 (MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990).
Spelke, E. S. in Perceptual Development in Infancy: Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology Vol. 20 (ed. Yonas, A.) 197–234 (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1988).
Spelke, E. S., Cog. Science 14, 29–56 (1990).
Baillargeon, R. Cognition 38, 13–42 (1991).
Baillargeon, R. & DeVos, J. Child Dev. 62, 1227–1246 (1991).
Wynn, K. Cog. Psychol. 24, 220–251 (1992).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wynn, K. Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature 358, 749–750 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1038/358749a0
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/358749a0
This article is cited by
-
Numeracy, gist, literal thinking and the value of nothing in decision making
Nature Reviews Psychology (2023)
-
What Can AI Learn from Psychology and When Can AI Neglect it?
Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences (2023)
-
Exploring the links between household chores, learning, and mathematics performance in Zambia
Current Psychology (2023)
-
Rethinking how children individuate objects: spatial indexicals in early development
Synthese (2023)
-
From Maximal Intersubjectivity to Objectivity: An Argument from the Development of Arithmetical Cognition
Topoi (2023)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.