Zero poses a unique challenge for numerical cognition because it denotes absence in cardinal contexts, yet functions as a formal entity in ordinal or interval systems. We examined how adults compare zero to positive single-digit numbers across symbolic, nonsymbolic, and mixed formats. Results replicated classic distance and end effects for positive numbers. However, the cognitive status of zero was found to be strictly format-dependent. In the symbolic format, the distance effect was driven by boundary values (0 and 1) and vanished when they were removed, suggesting symbolic zero functions as a structural anchor that defines the semantic transition from absence to quantity. In contrast, nonsymbolic zero was integrated into a continuous, nonlinear magnitude gradient, following the same psychophysical power-function pattern as other quantities. Furthermore, the [0, 1] pair elicited a unique facilitation in nonsymbolic and mixed formats, but not in the symbolic format. Together, these findings suggest that zero is not merely a point on a scale but a multi-faceted construct: while nonsymbolic zero is processed as a perceptual category of absence, symbolic zero acts as a semantic boundary that redefines the internal structure of the mental number line.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leibovich et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: