Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31722039›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2021

Symbol grounding of number words in the subitization range.

Mia Šetić Beg, Jakov Čičko, Dražen Domijan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mia Šetić BegDepartment of Psychology, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia.
Jakov ČičkoDepartment of Psychology, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia.
Dražen DomijanDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka, Sveučilišna avenija 4, 51000, Rijeka, Croatia. ddomijan@ffri.hr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2589-3397

Funding

Catholic University of Croatia HKS-2018-5University of Rijeka uniri-drustv-18-177
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In three experiments, we explored whether number words are grounded in a nonsymbolic representation of numerosity. We used a sentence-picture verification task, where participants are required to check whether the concept given in a sentence corresponds to the subsequently presented object. We concurrently manipulated numerical congruency by orthogonally varying the number word attached to the concept and the quantity of objects. The number words and numerosities varied from one to four in Experiment 1 and from six to nine in Experiment 2. In Experiment 3, we employed number words six and eight with the constraint that, in the incongruent condition, a constant number-to-numerosity ratio of 2:1 was used. In Experiment 1, we found that participants were faster and more efficient when concept-object matches were accompanied by numerical congruency relative to incongruency. On the other hand, no such difference was observed in Experiments 2 and 3 for numbers falling outside of the subitization range. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that number words from one to four are grounded in a nonsymbolic representation of the size of small sets.

Indexed as

SemanticsVocabularyAdultCognitionFemaleHumansMalePattern Recognition, Visual

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.