↓ Skip to main content

Ratio dependence in small number discrimination is affected by the experimental procedure

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Ratio dependence in small number discrimination is affected by the experimental procedure
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01649
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Agrillo, Laura Piffer, Angelo Bisazza, Brian Butterworth

Abstract

Adults, infants and some non-human animals share an approximate number system (ANS) to estimate numerical quantities, and are supposed to share a second, 'object-tracking,' system (OTS) that supports the precise representation of a small number of items (up to 3 or 4). In relative numerosity judgments, accuracy depends on the ratio of the two numerosities (Weber's Law) for numerosities >4 (the typical ANS range), while for numerosities ≤4 (OTS range) there is usually no ratio effect. However, recent studies have found evidence for ratio effects for small numerosities, challenging the idea that the OTS might be involved for small number discrimination. Here we tested the hypothesis that the lack of ratio effect in the numbers 1-4 is largely dependent on the type of stimulus presentation. We investigated relative numerosity judgments in college students using three different procedures: a simultaneous presentation of intermingled and separate groups of dots in separate experiments, and a further experiment with sequential presentation. As predicted, in the large number range, ratio dependence was observed in all tasks. By contrast, in the small number range, ratio insensitivity was found in one task (sequential presentation). In a fourth experiment, we showed that the presence of intermingled distractors elicited a ratio effect, while easily distinguishable distractors did not. As the different ratio sensitivity for small and large numbers has been often interpreted in terms of the activation of the OTS and ANS, our results suggest that numbers 1-4 may be represented by both numerical systems and that the experimental context, such as the presence/absence of task-irrelevant items in the visual field, would determine which system is activated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 11 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 46%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 11 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 26 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,880,737
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,431
of 29,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,803
of 284,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#103
of 488 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,820 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 done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 284,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 488 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.