ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024
Non-symbolic estimation of big and small ratios with accurate and noisy feedback.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2024. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ratio of two magnitudes can take one of two values depending on the order they are operated on: a 'big' ratio of the larger to smaller magnitude, or a 'small' ratio of the smaller to larger. Although big and small ratio scales have different metric properties and carry divergent predictions for perceptual comparison tasks, no psychophysical studies have directly compared them. Two experiments are reported in which subjects implicitly learned to compare pairs of brightnesses and line lengths by non-symbolic feedback based on the scaled big ratio, small ratio or difference of the magnitudes presented. Results of Experiment 1 showed all three operations were learned quickly and estimated with a high degree of accuracy that did not significantly differ across groups or between intensive and extensive modalities, though regressions on individual data suggested an overall predisposition towards differences. Experiment 2 tested whether subjects learned to estimate the operation trained or to associate stimulus pairs with correct responses. For each operation, Gaussian noise was added to the feedback that was constant for repetitions of each pair. For all subjects, coefficients for the added noise component were negative when entered in a regression model alongside the trained differences or ratios, and were statistically significant in 80% of individual cases. Thus, subjects learned to estimate the comparative operations and effectively ignored or suppressed the added noise. These results suggest the perceptual system is highly flexible in its capacity for non-symbolic computation, which may reflect a deeper connection between perceptual structure and mathematics.
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.