ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2021
The averaging of numerosities: A psychometric investigation of the mental line.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expecting to integrate additional information improves averaging of experience.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Extracting Summary Statistics of Rapid Numerical Sequences.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans and animals are capable of estimating and discriminating nonsymbolic numerosities via mental representation of magnitudes-the approximate number system (ANS). There are two models of the ANS system, which are similar in their prediction in numerosity discrimination tasks. The log-Gaussian model, which assumes numerosities are represented on a compressed logarithmic scale, and the scalar variability model, which assumes numerosities are represented on a linear scale. In the first experiment of this paper, we contrasted these models using averaging of numerosities. We examined whether participants generate a compressed mean (i.e., geometric mean) or a linear mean when averaging two numerosities. Our results demonstrated that half of the participants are linear and half are compressed; however, in general, the compression is milder than a logarithmic compression. In Experiments 2 and 3, we examined averaging of numerosities in sequences larger than two. We found that averaging precision increases with sequence length. These results are in line with previous findings, suggesting a mechanism in which the estimate is generated by population averaging of the responses each stimulus generates on the numerosity representation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.