ArticleScientific reports2023
Top-down determinants of the numerosity-time interaction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beware bisection: the direction of time-numerosity interactions depends on objective reference.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Psychometric functions for temporal discrimination: Duration or log duration?Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Stimuli are perceived as lasting longer when there is something bright on the screen.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Symmetrical and asymmetrical distortions in time and numerosity perception induced by chunked stimuli.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- The role of motor effort on the sensorimotor number system.Psychological research · 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
Abstract
Previous studies have reported that larger visual stimuli are perceived as lasting longer than smaller ones. However, this effect disappears when participants provide a qualitative judgment, by stating whether two stimuli have the "same or different" duration, instead of providing an explicit quantitative judgment (which stimulus lasts longer). Here, we extended these observations to the interaction between the numerosity of visual stimuli, i.e. clouds of dots, and their duration. With "longer vs shorter" responses, participants judged larger numerosities as lasting longer than smaller ones, both when the responses were related to the order (Experiment 1) or color (Experiment 4) of stimuli. In contrast, no similar effect was found with "same vs different" responses (Experiment 2) and in a time motor reproduction task (Experiment 3). The numerosity-time interference in Experiment 1 and Experiment 4 was not due to task difficulty, as sensory precision was equivalent to that of Experiment 2. We conclude that in humans the functional interaction between numerosity and time is not guided, in the main, by a shared bottom-up mechanism of magnitude coding. Rather, high-level and top-down processes involved in decision-making and guided by the use of "magnitude-related" response codes play a crucial role in triggering interference among different magnitude domains.
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.