ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025
From automatic integration to selective control: time-resolved effects of sensory cues on numerical comparison.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Approximate numerical comparison is often influenced by various non-numerical sensory cues, yet whether they act via uniform inhibition (inhibitory control theory) or cue-weighted integration (sensory integration theory) remains debated. Methods: To clarify this theoretical controversy, the present study tested a cue-specific, temporally staged account by orthogonally manipulating numerosity with a holistic, highweight cue (convex hull) and a basic, lower-weight cue (average dot size) while recording fronto-central ERPs (P2, N450). Twenty-five adults performed a rapid dot array comparison under four congruency conditions. Results: Behavior showed clear convex-hull dominance: accuracy was high whenever convex hull aligned with numerosity and dropped when it conflicted, regardless of dot-size consistency; response times were unchanged. ERPs revealed a two-stage dynamic: the early P2 selectively tracked dot-size congruency (larger for dot-size-congruent trials), consistent with automatic integration of basic features, whereas the later N450 scaled with conflict structure and cue weight (fully congruent < dot-size-congruent < fully incongruent < convex-hull-congruent/dot-size-incongruent), with no latency differences. Discussion: These converging results support a time-resolved, weightsensitive mechanism in which basic features bias integration early and holistic configurations dominate later choice and recruit control when misaligned. The account reconciles sensory-integration and inhibitory-control views and motivates further tests of how cue-cue and cue-number conflicts shape numerical decisions.
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.