Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39472716›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Adaptation biases the parallel perception of subitized numerosities.

Wei Liu, Xiaoke Zhao, Ying Liu, Yating Li, Jingguang Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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

5 authors.

Wei LiuCollege of Education, Yunnan Minzu University, Kunming, China.
Xiaoke ZhaoCollege of Teacher Education, Dali University, Dali, China.
Ying LiuCollege of Education, Yunnan Minzu University, Kunming, China.
Yating LiCollege of Education, Yunnan Minzu University, Kunming, China.
Jingguang LiCollege of Teacher Education, Dali University, Dali, China. jingguang.li.k@gmail.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 31500884National Natural Science Foundation of China 32060192
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerosity adaptation is a phenomenon in which prolonged exposure to a stimulus of greater numerosity makes subsequent stimuli appear less numerous, and vice versa. It has been confined to moderated numerosities outside the subitizing range (> 4). This study investigated whether the estimation of small numerosities (1-4), which is performed rapidly and accurately due to the mechanism of subitizing, is susceptible to adaptation. After adapting to a 50-dot stimulus, participants were presented with stimuli consisting of 1-5 color sets. In some trials, participants were informed of the target color-set before the presentation of stimuli, while in others, they were instructed afterwards. When estimating 1-4 dots in the single-color set or superset (the total dots), no adaptation effect was observed. The coefficient of variation (CV) was below 0.05, indicating the effective function of subitizing. However, when enumerating subsets in parallel, adaptation biased the estimation. The CV in estimating subitized numerosities was comparable to and correlated with that of estimating moderate numerosities (5-12), suggesting that subitizing was superseded by numerosity estimation. Greater effects arise when the targets were probed afterwards, with elevated CV. The prior adaptor may be more weighted to optimize detection of number deviations, especially under higher perceptual uncertainty.

Indexed as

Photic StimulationAdaptation, PhysiologicalAdultColor PerceptionFemaleHumansMaleVisual PerceptionYoung AdultEstimationGist perceptionNumerosity adaptationParallel processingSubitizing

Identifiers

PMID39472716
PMCPMC11522287

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.