ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Connectedness effects in enumeration of small numbers.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. 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
The connectedness effect is the tendency to perceive connected items as fewer units, such as two connected dots seen as one. It commonly occurs with intermediate numerosity perception alongside the activity of the approximate number system (ANS), indicating that intermediate quantities are perceived as discrete units rather than continuous magnitudes. The present study explored how this effect influences the enumeration of small numerosities (fewer than 5), which are accurately assessed through a mechanism known as subitizing under normal conditions. In the single enumeration task, where participants enumerated 2-4 dots solely from the indicated target patch prior to stimulus presentation, connectivity did not induce underestimation, indicating that subitizing is impervious to the connectedness effect. Conversely, connectivity led to significant underestimation in the dual enumeration task, where participants had to simultaneously estimate dots in both patches and respond upon cueing of the target patch. Furthermore, the connectedness effect is more pronounced in the simultaneous comparison task compared with the sequential task. Weber fractions for small numerosities correlate with those for intermediate numerosities in the simultaneous comparison task, whereas no such correlation is observed in the sequential task. This suggests that subitizing prevails in single/sequential tasks, while estimation takes precedence in dual/simultaneous tasks under attentional load. The connectedness effect does not impact the subitizing mechanism in single tasks, but it occurs alongside estimation regardless of the number regime, leading to significant underestimation in dual tasks. Approximate estimation relies on segmented objects, rather than continuous magnitude, even for very small numerosities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40760297What 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.