ArticleScientific reports2022
Underestimation in temporal numerosity judgments computationally explained by population coding model.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to judge numerosity is essential to an animal's survival. Nevertheless, the number of signals presented in a sequence is often underestimated. We attempted to elucidate the mechanism for the underestimation by means of computational modeling based on population coding. In the model, the population of neurons which were selective to the logarithmic number of signals responded to sequential signals and the population activity was integrated by a temporal window. The total number of signals was decoded by a weighted average of the integrated activity. The model predicted well the general trends in the human data while the prediction was not fully sufficient for the novel aging effect wherein underestimation was significantly greater for the elderly than for the young in specific stimulus conditions. Barring the aging effect, we can conclude that humans judge the number of signals in sequence by temporally integrating the neural representations of numerosity.
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.