ArticleJournal of vision2022
The nature of magnitude integration: Contextual interference versus active magnitude binding.
Article in Journal of vision, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Neural networks underlying magnitude perception: a specific meta-analysis of fMRI studies.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Pooled it
- Beware bisection: the direction of time-numerosity interactions depends on objective reference.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Magnitude processing and integration entail perceptual processes independent from the task.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Time and visual-spatial illusions: Evidence for cross-dimensional interference between duration and illusory size.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Near-optimal integration of the magnitude information of time and numerosity.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnitude dimensions such as duration and numerosity have been shown to systematically interact, biasing each other in a congruent fashion: the more numerous a set of items is, the longer it is perceived to last in time. This integration between dimensions plays an important role in defining how we perceive magnitude. So far, however, the nature of magnitude integration remains unclear. Is magnitude integration a contextual interference, occurring whenever different types of information are concurrently available in the visual field, or does it involve an active "binding" of the different dimensions of the same object? To address these possibilities, we measured the integration bias induced by numerosity on perceived duration, in two cases: with duration and numerosity conveyed by distinct stimuli, or by the same stimulus. We show that a congruent integration effect can be observed only when the two magnitudes belong to the same stimulus. Instead, when the two magnitudes are conveyed by distinct stimuli, we observed an opposite effect. These findings demonstrate for the first time that a congruent integration occurs only between the dimensions of the same stimulus, suggesting the involvement of an active mechanism integrating the different dimensions of the same object in a unified percept.
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.