ArticleJournal of vision2022
Spatial number estimation has a higher linear range than temporal number estimation; differential affordances for subdivision might help to explain why.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Texture density discrimination is more precise than number discrimination.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- "Groupitizing": A Visuo-Spatial and Arithmetic Phenomenon.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
- Implied occlusion and subset underestimation contribute to the weak-outnumber-strong numerosity illusion.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Relative numerosity is constructed from size and density information: Evidence from adaptation.Journal of vision · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimation of visuospatial number typically has a limited linear range that goes well beyond the subitizing range but typically not beyond 20 items without calibration procedures. Three experiments involving a total of 104 undergraduate students, each tested once, sought to determine if the limit on the linear range represented a capacity limitation of a linear accumulator or might be the result of a strategy based on subdividing spatial displays into potentially subitizable subsets. For visual and auditory temporal numbers for a large range of numbers (2-58; Experiment 1), the (unbiased) linear range was found to be quite restricted (three or four items). Using matched linear spatial number stimuli (Experiment 2), the linear range observed extended to about nine or 10 items. Experiment 3 compared estimates when simultaneous two-dimensional spatial number displays were presented briefly, with estimates for identical displays that accumulated over time. The linear range of estimates for accumulating spatial displays reached only 11 items, whereas that for briefly presented displays extended to about 20 items. These results suggest that the limit on the linear range is not simply a capacity limitation in a linear accumulator. Rather, they support the idea that linear spatial number estimation for the range from five to 20 may be based on subdividing the display into a subitizable number of (potentially) subitizable groups, even if those groups are not outwardly marked.
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.