IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0357108.html

How do we estimate magnitudes? Validating the magnitude stroop task

Author

Listed:
  • Michele Garagnani
  • Nitin Yadav

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Michele Garagnani & Nitin Yadav, 2026. "How do we estimate magnitudes? Validating the magnitude stroop task," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(8), pages 1-12, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0357108
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0357108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0357108
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0357108&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0357108?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0357108. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.