ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2023
The role of spatial information in an approximate cross-modal number matching task.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2023. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The approximate number system (ANS) is thought to be an innate cognitive system that allows humans to perceive numbers (>4) in a fuzzy manner. One assumption of the ANS is that numerosity is represented amodally due to a mechanism, which filters out nonnumerical information from stimulus material. However, some studies show that nonnumerical information (e.g., spatial parameters) influence the numerosity percept as well. Here, we investigated whether there is a cross-modal transfer of spatial information between the haptic and visual modality in an approximate cross-modal number matching task. We presented different arrays of dowels (haptic stimuli) to 50 undergraduates and asked them to compare haptically perceived numerosity to two visually presented dot arrays. Participants chose which visually presented array matched the numerosity of the haptic stimulus. The distractor varied in number and displayed a random pattern, whereas the matching (target) dot array was either spatially identical or spatially randomized (to the haptic stimulus). We hypothesized that if a "numerosity" percept is based solely on number, neither spatially identical nor spatial congruence between the haptic and the visual target arrays would affect the accuracy in the task. However, results show significant processing advantages for targets with spatially identical patterns and, furthermore, that spatial congruency between haptic source and visual target facilitates performance. Our results show that spatial information was extracted from the haptic stimuli and influenced participants' responses, which challenges the assumption that numerosity is represented in a truly abstract manner by filtering out any other stimulus features.
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.