Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42371146›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2026

The length of a piece of string: Where the whole is more than the sum of its constituent parts.

Frédéric Devinck, Olivier Le Bohec, Alexandra M Johnstone, Arash Sahraie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Frédéric DevinckDépartement de Psychologie, Université Rennes 2, Rennes, 35000, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6126-9183
Olivier Le BohecDépartement de Psychologie, Université Rennes 2, Rennes, 35000, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-2088-779X
Alexandra M JohnstoneRowett Institute, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5484-292X
Arash SahraieDépartement de Psychologie, Université Rennes 2, Rennes, 35000, France. a.sahraie@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3302-5119

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determination of the magnitude or size of objects is crucial in many activities of daily living. Here we provide psychophysical evidence across multiple experiments that judgements for accumulated length of fragmented lines are non-veridical, with a larger number of fragments leading to a larger reduction in perceived size. The reported reduction in the size of fragmented stimuli is not a result of stimulus bias or frequency of observations and reflects an inherent perceptual bias. We have extended the findings to real objects in laboratory conditions. Whilst the discrimination threshold for two intact lines remained similar to those reported previously, the reduction in perceived length with fragmentation persisted. Finally, we gathered behavioral data on a real-life task of matching the length of a strand of cooked spaghetti using spaghetti pieces of varying sizes. Participants used progressively larger amounts of spaghetti to match reference length when selecting from smaller cut pieces. The reduction in the perceived magnitude of small segments remained evident when participants decided on the portion size of cooked spaghetti. The converging evidence from multiple investigations demonstrates the robustness of the observed reduction in perceived size with fragmentation.

Indexed as

JudgmentSize PerceptionAdultDiscrimination, PsychologicalFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultLength perceptionMagnitude estimationSize perception

Identifiers

PMID42371146
PMCPMC13315493

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.