Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39046720›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2024

The radial-tangential anisotropy of numerosity perception.

Li L-Miao, Bert Reynvoet, Bilge Sayim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Li L-MiaoUniversité de Lille, CNRS, UMR 9193-SCALab-Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Lille, France.
Bert ReynvoetFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven Kulak, Kortrijk, Belgium.
Bilge SayimUniversité de Lille, CNRS, UMR 9193-SCALab-Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Lille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans can estimate the number of visually presented items without counting. In most studies on numerosity perception, items are uniformly distributed across displays, with identical distributions in central and eccentric parts. However, the neural and perceptual representation of the human visual field differs between the fovea and the periphery. For example, in peripheral vision, there are strong asymmetries with regard to perceptual interferences between visual items. In particular, items arranged radially usually interfere more strongly with each other than items arranged tangentially (the radial-tangential anisotropy). This has been shown for crowding (the deleterious effect of clutter on target identification) and redundancy masking (the reduction of the number of perceived items in repeating patterns). In the present study, we tested how the radial-tangential anisotropy of peripheral vision impacts numerosity perception. In four experiments, we presented displays with varying numbers of discs that were predominantly arranged radially or tangentially, forming strong and weak interference conditions, respectively. Participants were asked to report the number of discs. We found that radial displays were reported as less numerous than tangential displays for all radial and tangential manipulations: weak (Experiment 1), strong (Experiment 2), and when using displays with mixed contrast polarity discs (Experiments 3 and 4). We propose that numerosity perception exhibits a significant radial-tangential anisotropy, resulting from local spatial interactions between items.

Indexed as

Pattern Recognition, VisualAdultAnisotropyFemaleHumansMalePerceptual MaskingPhotic StimulationVisual FieldsVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39046720
PMCPMC11271808

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.