ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Number comparison under the Ebbinghaus illusion.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A series of studies show interest in how visual attributes affect the estimate of object numbers in a scene. In comparison tasks, it is suggested that larger patches are perceived as more numerous. However, the inequality of density, which changes inversely with the area when numerosity remains constant, may mediate the influence of area on numerosity perception. This study aims to explore the role of area and density in the judgment of numerosity. The Ebbinghaus illusion paradigm was adopted to induce differences in the perceived, rather than the physical, area of the two patches to be compared. Participants were asked to compare the area, density, and the number of the two patches in three tasks. To this end, no PSE (point of subjective equality) bias was found in number comparison with randomly distributed dots, although a significant difference was revealed in the perceived area of the two patches. No PSE bias was found in the density comparison, either. For a comparison, density and number tasks were also conducted with regularly distributed dots. No PSE bias was found in density comparison. By contrast, significant PSE bias showed up in number comparison, and larger patches appeared to be more numerous than smaller patches. The density mechanism was proposed as the basis for number comparison with regular patterns. The individual Weber fractions for regular patterns were not correlated with those for random patterns in the number task, but they were correlated with those for both patterns in the density task. To summarize, numerosity is directly sensed, and numerosity perception is not affected by area inequality induced by the Ebbinghaus illusion. In contrast, density and area are combined to infer numerosity when the approximate numerosity mechanism is disrupted by dot distribution.
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.