ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Measuring temporal bias in sequential numerosity comparison.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Disparate processing of numerosity and associated continuous magnitudes in rats.Science advances · 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
While several methods have been proposed to assess the influence of continuous visual cues in parallel numerosity estimation, the impact of temporal magnitudes on sequential numerosity judgments has been largely ignored. To overcome this issue, we extend a recently proposed framework that makes it possible to separate the contribution of numerical and non-numerical information in numerosity comparison by introducing a novel stimulus space designed for sequential tasks. Our method systematically varies the temporal magnitudes embedded into event sequences through the orthogonal manipulation of numerosity and two latent factors, which we designate as "duration" and "temporal spacing". This allows us to measure the contribution of finer-grained temporal features on numerosity judgments in several sensory modalities. We validate the proposed method on two different experiments in both visual and auditory modalities: results show that adult participants discriminated sequences primarily by relying on numerosity, with similar acuity in the visual and auditory modality. However, participants were similarly influenced by non-numerical cues, such as the total duration of the stimuli, suggesting that temporal cues can significantly bias numerical processing. Our findings highlight the need to carefully consider the continuous properties of numerical stimuli in a sequential mode of presentation as well, with particular relevance in multimodal and cross-modal investigations. We provide the complete code for creating sequential stimuli and analyzing participants' responses.
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.