Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37371453›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2023

Electrophysiological Comparison of Cumulative Area and Non-Symbolic Number Judgments.

Justin W Bonny, Stella F Lourenco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Justin W BonnyDepartment of Psychology, Morgan State University, 1700 East Cold Spring Lane, Baltimore, MD 21251, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1601-5114
Stella F LourencoDepartment of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.

Funding

John Merck Fund SFLLaney Graduate School at Emory College of Arts and Sciences JWB
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the importance of representing different magnitudes (i.e., number and cumulative area) for action planning and formal mathematics, there is much debate about the nature of these representations, particularly the extent to which magnitudes interact in the mind and brain. Early interaction views suggest that there are shared perceptual processes that form overlapping magnitude representations. However, late interaction views hold that representations of different magnitudes remain distinct, interacting only when preparing a motor response. The present study sheds light on this debate by examining the temporal onset of ratio and congruity effects as participants made ordinal judgments about number and cumulative area. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded to identify whether the onset of such effects aligned with early versus late views. Ratio effects for both magnitudes were observed starting in the P100. Moreover, a congruity effect emerged within the P100. That interactions were observed early in processing, at the same time that initial ratio effects occurred, suggests that number and cumulative area processes interacted when magnitude representations were being formed, prior to preparing a decision response. Our findings are consistent with an early interaction view of magnitude processing, in which number and cumulative area may rely on shared perceptual mechanisms.

Indexed as

approximate number systemcongruity effectERPmagnitude representationnon-symbolic number judgmentsratio effect

Identifiers

PMID37371453
PMCPMC10296489

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.