↓ Skip to main content

The role of numerical magnitude and order in the illusory perception of size and brightness

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The role of numerical magnitude and order in the illusory perception of size and brightness
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00484
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arnaud Viarouge, Maria Dolores de Hevia

Abstract

Processing magnitudes constitutes a common experience across multiple dimensions, for example when one has to compare sizes, duration, numbers, sound height or loudness. From a cognitive point of view, however, it is still unclear whether all these experiences rely on a common system, or on distinct systems, with more or less strong associations. One particularly striking way of observing such interference between the spatial and numerical dimensions consists in eliciting a bias in size judgment through the mere perception of irrelevant numerical stimuli. In such experimental context though, two questions remain open. First, it is still unknown whether the direction of the bias is related to the magnitude of the number presented, or to their position in an ordinal sequence, and thus could be elicited by other non-numerical ordinal sequences such as letters of the alphabet. Second, it is still unclear whether the observed interactions generalize to other continuous dimension of magnitude such as brightness. In the study reported here, both letters and numbers were used in a size- and a brightness-reproduction task. We observed a dissociation between the two types of stimuli when reproducing size, the illusion being elicited solely by numbers. When reproducing brightness, however, neither the letters nor the numbers elicited a bias. These findings suggest that, while only numerical magnitude, and not letters, elicits a bias in size perception, the concurrent processing of magnitude and brightness does not bring about the same illusion, supporting the idea of a relative independence in the processing of these two dimensions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 39 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 58%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Linguistics 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 11 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2021.
All research outputs
#12,685,958
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,369
of 29,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,733
of 280,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#497
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,507 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.