ArticlePloS one2022
Spatial and chromatic properties of numerosity estimation in isolation and context.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- From shape to number: Shape-from-dots homogeneity boosts groupitizing enumeration.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Simultaneous Regularity Contrast and Luminance Polarity.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The interplay between spatial and non-spatial grouping cues over approximate number perception.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerosity estimation around the subitizing range is facilitated by a shape-template matching process and shape-coding mechanisms are selective to visual features such as colour and luminance contrast polarity. Objects in natural scenes are often embedded within other objects or textured surfaces. Numerosity estimation is improved when objects are grouped into small clusters of the same colour, a phenomenon termed groupitizing, which is thought to leverage on the subitizing system. Here we investigate whether numerosity mechanisms around the subitizing range are selective to colour, luminance contrast polarity and orientation, and how spatial organisation of context and target elements modulates target numerosity estimation. Stimuli consisted of a small number (3-to-6) of target elements presented either in isolation or embedded within context elements. To examine selectivity to colour, luminance polarity and orientation, we compared target-only conditions in which all elements were either the same or different along one of these feature dimensions. We found comparable performance in the same and different feature conditions, revealing that subitizing mechanism do not depend on 'on-off' luminance-polarity, colour or orientation channel interactions. We also measured the effect of varying spatial organisation of (i) context, by arranging the elements either in a grid, mirror-symmetric, translation-symmetric or random; (ii) target, by placing the elements either mirror-symmetric, on the vertices of simple shapes or random. Our results indicate higher accuracy and lower RTs in the grid compared to all other context types, with mirror symmetric, translation and random arrangements having comparable effects on target numerosity. We also found improved performance with shape-target followed by symmetric and random target arrangements in the absence and presence of context. These findings indicate that numerosity mechanisms around the subitizing range are not selective to colour, luminance polarity and orientation, and that symmetric, translation and random contexts organisations inhibit target-numerosity encoding stronger than regular/grid context.
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.