ArticleExperimental brain research2026
The role of auditory and haptic cues in object enumeration within containers.
Article in Experimental brain research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Everyday experience suggests that handheld containers convey auditory and haptic information about their contents. The primary objective of this study was to examine how these two sources of information interact. Across three experiments, participants estimated the number of beads in cardboard boxes under three sensory conditions: haptics-only, auditory-only, and auditory-haptic. We hypothesized that the auditory-haptic condition would yield more accurate and precise estimates. A secondary objective was to assess the effects of time and manipulation constraints. In Experiment 1, participants were limited to 5 s of exploration using a standardized movement; Experiment 2 removed the time constraint, and Experiment 3 additionally removed the movement constraint. Results indicated that participants could reliably estimate the number of items under all conditions but provided little evidence for multisensory integration. When both constraints were removed, the haptic-only condition produced significantly more accurate estimates. These findings suggest that manipulation constraints influence enumeration performance and that haptic cues can support accurate judgments when exploration is unconstrained.
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.