ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022
Response bias in numerosity perception at early judgments and systematic underestimation.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mental number representation relies on mapping numerosity based on nonsymbolic stimuli to symbolic magnitudes. It is known that mental number representation builds on a logarithmic scale, and thus numerosity decisions result in underestimation. In the current study, we investigated the temporal dynamics of numerosity perception in four experiments by employing the response-deadline SAT procedure. We presented random number of dots and required participants to make a numerosity judgment by comparing the perceived number of dots to 50. Using temporal dynamics in numerosity perception allowed us to observe a response bias at early decisions and a systematic underestimation at late decisions. In all three experiments, providing feedback diminished the magnitude of underestimation, whereas in Experiment 3 the absence of feedback resulted in greater underestimation errors. These results were in accordance with the findings that suggested feedback is necessary for the calibration of the mental number representation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34518971What 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.