ArticlePsychological research2021
Non-symbolic numerosity encoding escapes spatial frequency equalization.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Looks like home: numerosity, but not spatial frequency guides preference in zebrafish larvae (Danio rerio).Animal cognition · 2024Article
- The interplay between spatial and non-spatial grouping cues over approximate number perception.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Spatial frequency equalization does not prevent spatial-numerical associations.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2022Article
- Numerosity tuning in human association cortices and local image contrast representations in early visual cortex.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Visual P2p component responds to perceived numerosity.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
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
The exact visual mechanisms underpinning the approximate number system are still debated. Recent evidence suggests that numerosity is extracted on segmented visual objects, at least for a moderate numerical range (e.g., < 100 items), whereas alternative models rather propose that numerosity is derived from low-level features (e.g., power spectrum) of an unsegmented image, independently from the range. Here, to disentangle these accounts, we generated stimuli that were equalized for spatial frequency amplitude spectrum and luminance across sets of moderate range numerosities (e.g., 9-15 dots), while independently manipulating the perceived item segmentation by connecting dots with illusory contours (ICs). In Experiment 1, participants performed a numerical discrimination task, in which they had to select the numerically larger between two stimuli: a reference stimulus (always 12 dots) and a test stimulus (from 9 to 15 dots) containing 0, 2 or 4 pairs of dots grouped by ICs lines. In Experiment 2, participants were presented only the test stimulus and performed an estimation task. Results clearly showed that in both experiments participants' performance followed well-known numerical signatures (e.g., distance effect and scalar variability), with numerosity that was underestimated as the illusory connections increased. Crucially, this was found despite spatial frequencies and luminance were kept constant across all the experimental stimuli and these variables were thus uninformative about numerosity. Taken together, these findings indicate that power spectrum in its own cannot explain numerical processing. Rather, visual segmentation mechanisms may be crucial in such processing at least for a moderate numerosity range.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33398450What 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.