Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42672096›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

How do we estimate magnitudes? Validating the magnitude stroop task.

Michele Garagnani, Nitin Yadav

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

2 authors.

Michele GaragnaniCenter for Brain, Mind, and Markets, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2510-7109
Nitin YadavCenter for Brain, Mind, and Markets, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans have the ability to make spontaneous and rapid estimates of the approximate number of items they see, without explicitly counting them (e.g., estimating the number of fruits on a tree). However, most of our decisions are based on comparing symbolically represented numbers, such as Arabic numerals. Here, we validate a variant of the Stroop task, the "Magnitude Stroop," which investigates differences in behaviour when numbers are represented as magnitudes versus symbols. In this task, stimuli are presented simultaneously as numerical symbols and magnitudes (e.g., the number 1 is represented by vertically aligned dots). In two studies (online N = 204 and offline N = 60), participants were asked either to select the stimulus with more dots or with the largest number. These two rules are occasionally equivalent but at times not, hence creating a possible Stroop interference effect. We find that the Stroop effect is stronger when participants are asked to select the stimulus with more dots and ignore the largest number, compared to when they should ignore the number of dots and select the largest number. These findings suggest that more research on how people estimate magnitudes across modalities is needed and we validate a method which could help investigations in this topic.

Indexed as

Stroop TestAdultFemaleHumansMaleReaction TimeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID42672096
PMCPMC13528955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.