ArticleScientific reports2024
Adaptation biases the parallel perception of subitized numerosities.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
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was comparable to and correlated with that of estimating moderate numerosities (5-12), suggesting that subitizing was superseded by numerosity estimation.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
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.