ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
Part-whole effects in visual number estimation.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2026. 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
Abstract
In a single glance at a collection of objects, we can appreciate their numerosity. But what are the "objects" over which this number sense operates? Most work in this domain has implicitly assumed that we estimate the number of discrete, bounded individuals actually present in the visual field. However, in many instances we can construe such individuals as potential parts of composite objects that they can create-as when we assemble furniture or complete a jigsaw puzzle. Here, we demonstrate that visual numerosity estimation is sensitive to such part-whole relations, such that the number of items in a display is underestimated when it contains spatially separated but easily combinable objects. Participants saw brief displays containing noncontiguous "puzzle-piece" stimuli, and reported which display had more pieces. Crucially, most of the pieces appeared in pairs that either could or could not efficiently combine into new objects. In four experiments, displays with combinable pieces were judged as less numerous than displays with noncombinable pieces-as if the mind treated two geometrically compatible pieces as being the single whole object they could create. These effects went beyond various low-level factors, and they persisted even when participants were explicitly trained to treat individual pieces as the units that should be counted. Thus, despite the many ways that sets of objects may be construed for the purposes of counting, visual perception automatically takes into account the ways that object parts may combine into wholes when extracting numerosity from visual displays.
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.