↓ Skip to main content

How Illusory Is the Solitaire Illusion? Assessing the Degree of Misperception of Numerosity in Adult Humans

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
How Illusory Is the Solitaire Illusion? Assessing the Degree of Misperception of Numerosity in Adult Humans
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01663
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Agrillo, Audrey E. Parrish, Michael J. Beran

Abstract

The Solitaire illusion occurs when the spatial arrangement of items influences the subjective estimation of their quantity. Unlike other illusory phenomena frequently reported in humans and often also in non-human animals, evidence of the Solitaire illusion in species other than humans remains weak. However, before concluding that this perceptual bias affects quantity judgments differently in human and non-human animals, further investigations on the strength of the Solitaire illusion is required. To date, no study has assessed the exact misperception of numerosity generated by the Solitaire arrangement, and the possibility exists that the numerical effects generated by the illusion are too subtle to be detected by non-human animals. The present study investigated the strength of this illusion in adult humans. In a relative numerosity task, participants were required to select which array contained more blue items in the presence of two arrays made of identical blue and yellow items. Participants perceived the Solitaire illusion as predicted, overestimating the Solitaire array with centrally clustered blue items as more numerous than the Solitaire array with blue items on the perimeter. Their performance in the presence of the Solitaire array was similar to that observed in control trials with numerical ratios larger than 0.67, suggesting that the illusory array produces a substantial overestimation of the number of blue items in one array relative to the other. This aspect was more directly investigated in a numerosity identification task in which participants were required to estimate the number of blue items when single arrays were presented one at a time. In the presence of the Solitaire array, participants slightly overestimated the number of items when they were centrally located while they underestimated the number of items when those items were located on the perimeter. Items located on the perimeter were perceived to be 76% as numerous as centrally located items. The magnitude of misperception of numerosity reported here may represent a useful tool to help to understand whether non-human animals have different perceptual mechanisms or, instead, do not display adequate numerical abilities to spot the illusory difference generated in the Solitaire array.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 33%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 June 2017.
All research outputs
#16,559,413
of 24,364,603 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,417
of 32,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,819
of 318,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#331
of 460 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,364,603 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,805 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 318,938 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 460 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.