Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36258143›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022

Visual field asymmetries in numerosity processing.

Ramakrishna Chakravarthi, Danai Papadaki, Jan Krajnik

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Asymmetries in Foveal Vision.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Asymmetries in foveal vision.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Do microsaccades vary with discriminability around the visual field?bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ramakrishna ChakravarthiSchool of Psychology, Kings College, University of Aberdeen, William Guild Building S7, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, UK. rama@abdn.ac.uk.
Danai PapadakiSchool of Psychology, Kings College, University of Aberdeen, William Guild Building S7, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, UK.
Jan KrajnikSchool of Psychology, Kings College, University of Aberdeen, William Guild Building S7, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, UK.
University of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A small number of objects can be rapidly and accurately enumerated, whereas a larger number of objects can only be approximately enumerated. These subitizing and estimation abilities, respectively, are both spatial processes relying on extracting information across spatial locations. Nevertheless, whether and how these processes vary across visual field locations remains unknown. Here, we examined if enumeration displays asymmetries around the visual field. Experiment 1 tested small number (1-6) enumeration at cardinal and non-cardinal peripheral locations while manipulating the spacing among the objects. Experiment 2 examined enumeration at cardinal locations in more detail while minimising crowding. Both experiments demonstrated a Horizontal-Vertical Asymmetry (HVA) where performance was better along the horizontal axis relative to the vertical. Experiment 1 found that this effect was modulated by spacing with stronger asymmetry at closer spacing. Experiment 2 revealed further asymmetries: a Vertical Meridian Asymmetry (VMA) with better enumeration on the lower vertical meridian than on the upper and a Horizontal Meridian Asymmetry (HMA) with better enumeration along the left horizontal meridian than along the right. All three asymmetries were evident for both subitizing and estimation. HVA and VMA have been observed in a range of visual tasks, indicating that they might be inherited from early visual constraints. However, HMA is observed primarily in mid-level tasks, often involving attention. These results suggest that while enumeration processes can be argued to inherit low-level visual constraints, the findings are, parsimoniously, consistent with visual attention playing a role in both subitizing and estimation.

Indexed as

Visual FieldsHumansAttentionCrowdingEnumerationEstimationSubitizingVisual field asymmetry

Identifiers

PMID36258143
PMCPMC9630184
OpenAlexW4306717485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.