ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
The haptic cues humans use to sense small numbers of objects in a box.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The role of auditory and haptic cues in object enumeration within containers.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans can acquire behaviorally relevant information about the contents of a container through their sense of touch. A container poses a challenge to the haptic sense as it creates an intermediary between its contents and the observer. Despite this challenge, several studies have shown that individuals are particularly adept at estimating small numbers of objects in an opaque box solely through tactile interaction. This study aimed to identify which physical cues contribute to this ability by systematically attenuating (Experiment 1) or augmenting (Experiment 2) the cues of rolling vibrations, impact, and weight. Rolling cues were manipulated by varying the friction between the objects and the container's floor. Impact cues were manipulated by softening or hardening the container's internal wall. Weight cues were controlled by equalizing the total weight of the contents, regardless of the number of objects. The findings suggest that rolling vibrations are the primary cues, followed by impact cues, while weight plays only a minor role.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39904934What 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.