Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39417755›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2024

Implied occlusion and subset underestimation contribute to the weak-outnumber-strong numerosity illusion.

Eliana G Dellinger, Katelyn M Becker, Frank H Durgin

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.

Eliana G DellingerDepartment of Psychology, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, USA.
Katelyn M BeckerDepartment of Psychology, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, USA.
Frank H DurginDepartment of Psychology, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Four experimental studies are reported using a total of 712 participants to investigate the basis of a recently reported numerosity illusion called "weak-outnumber-strong" (WOS). In the weak-outnumber-strong illusion, when equal numbers of white and gray dots (e.g., 50 of each) are intermixed against a darker gray background, the gray dots seem much more numerous than the white. Two principles seem to be supported by these new results: 1) Subsets of mixtures are generally underestimated; thus, in mixtures of red and green dots, both sets are underestimated (using a matching task) just as the white dots are in the weak-outnumber-strong illusion, but 2) the gray dots seem to be filled in as if partially occluded by the brighter white dots. This second principle is supported by manipulations of depth perception both by pictorial cues (partial occlusion) and by binocular cues (stereopsis), such that the illusion is abolished when the gray dots are depicted as closer than the white dots, but remains strong when they are depicted as lying behind the white dots. Finally, an online investigation of a prior false-floor hypothesis concerning the effect suggests that manipulations of relative contrast may affect the segmentation process, which produces the visual bias known as subset underestimation.

Indexed as

Depth PerceptionOptical IllusionsAdultCuesFemaleHumansIllusionsMalePattern Recognition, VisualPhotic StimulationVision, BinocularYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39417755
PMCPMC11498648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.