Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39984812›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025

Psychophysics over the counter: The effect of food preference on the perception of food quantity.

Hofit Bar, Martin H Fischer, Daniel Algom

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Hofit BarDepartment of Psychology, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. hofitbar219@gmail.com.
Martin H FischerDepartment of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Daniel AlgomDepartment of Psychology, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much research in food psychology has examined the influence of perceptual features - color, texture, packaging - on preference for that food. Here, we addressed the reverse question of the influence of food preference on the perception of its quantity. Does a portion of a loved food appear different than the same portion of a hated food? We probed this question by employing state-of-the-art tools of psychophysics, which allowed us the parallel examination of several long-standing issues of psychophysics. The latter included the difference between symbolic and non-symbolic number, the difference between the methods of Magnitude Estimation and Magnitude Production, the difference between under- or over-estimation and rate of growth measured by the (slope of) psychophysical function as well as the derivation of the Difference Threshold by the method of Constant Stimuli. We addressed the question of an effect on perception of food valence with four distinct experiments. Presenting real food items, we found that perceived quantity is a compressive function of objective quantity regardless of valence; both loved- and hated-food dynamics are governed by Stevens' power function with an exponent of 0.8. In absolute terms, applying Magnitude Estimation, we witnessed a gross underestimation for loved and hated food alike. In contrast, applying Magnitude Production, participants underproduced loved food, but overproduced hated food. For discrimination of food quantity, we found better resolving power for hated food. Collectively, our results show that, across diverse psychophysical evaluations, food valence affects its perception, especially when people actively regulate the to-be-consumed portion.

Indexed as

Food PreferencesJudgmentPattern Recognition, VisualAdultDifferential ThresholdDiscrimination, PsychologicalFemaleHumansMalePsychophysicsYoung AdultDifference thresholdFood-quantityFood-valencePsychophysical function

Identifiers

PMID39984812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.