Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Continuity in geometric intuition between humans and monkeys.

Created on 21 Jul 2026

Authors

Jialin Li, Isabelle Boni, Logan R Sandwick, Emily M Sanford, Caroline M DeLong, Li Wenjie, Margaret M Henderson, Steven T Piantadosi, Jessica F Cantlon

Published in

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Volume 123. Issue 30. Pages e2532934123. Jul 28, 2026. Epub Jul 20, 2026.

Abstract

Geometric intuition is regarded as a hallmark of human intelligence. Humans hold a unique advantage in recognizing geometric shapes with Euclidean features (e.g., parallelism, symmetry) and have more sophisticated geometric concepts than nonhuman primates. A popular explanation for this human distinctiveness is that humans rely on discrete, symbolic features to encode geometric shapes, while other primates depend only on continuous perceptual features. The current study challenges this view. We used a match-to-sample task to test whether monkeys share geometric representations with humans. We found that monkeys combined high-level perceptual representations with abstract symbolic representations like humans, suggesting a graded, quantitative continuity in geometric intuition across species rather than a categorical, qualitative divide. Importantly, monkeys showed stronger reliance on symbolic features when processing rotated geometric shapes than preschoolers did with unrotated shapes, indicating that what appears to be symbolic representation may largely emerge from rotation-invariant encoding. These results challenge the hypothesis of human uniqueness in geometric intuition and suggest that its origins in humans are rooted in abstractions shared with primates.

PMID:
42475566
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 21 Jul 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 14
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement