ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
EEG signature of grouping strategies in numerosity perception.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. 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.
- From shape to number: Shape-from-dots homogeneity boosts groupitizing enumeration.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- "Groupitizing": A Visuo-Spatial and Arithmetic Phenomenon.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
- Feature-selective adaptation of numerosity perception.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- The interplay between spatial and non-spatial grouping cues over approximate number perception.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The moment we see a group of objects, we can appreciate its numerosity. Our numerical estimates can be imprecise for large sets (>4 items), but they become much faster and more accurate if items are clustered into groups compared to when they are randomly displaced. This phenomenon, termed groupitizing, is thought to leverage on the capacity to quickly identify groups from 1 to 4 items (subitizing) within larger sets, however evidence in support for this hypothesis is scarce. The present study searched for an electrophysiological signature of subitizing while participants estimated grouped numerosities exceeding this range by measuring event-related potential (ERP) responses to visual arrays of different numerosities and spatial configurations. The EEG signal was recorded while 22 participants performed a numerosity estimation task on arrays with numerosities in the subitizing (3 or 4) or estimation (6 or 8) ranges. In the latter case, items could be spatially arranged into subgroups (3 or 4) or randomly scattered. In both ranges, we observed a decrease in N1 peak latency as the number of items increased. Importantly, when items were arranged to form subgroups, we showed that the N1 peak latency reflected both changes in total numerosity and changes in the number of subgroups. However, this result was mainly driven by the number of subgroups to suggest that clustered elements might trigger the recruitment of the subitizing system at a relatively early stage. At a later stage, we found that P2p was mostly modulated by the total numerosity in the set, with much less sensitivity for the number of subgroups these might be segregated in. Overall, this experiment suggests that the N1 component is sensitive to both local and global parcelling of elements in a scene suggesting that it could be crucially involved in the emergence of the groupitizing advantage. On the other hand, the later P2p component seems to be much more bounded to the global aspects of the scene coding the total number of elements while being mostly blind to the number of subgroups in which elements are parsed.
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.