At the Roots of Plant Awareness Disparity (PAD): Semantic processing and Numerosity Perception

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher
Full text 1,796 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Plant Awareness Disparity (PAD) refers to the inability of humans to notice plants and recognize their importance. Among the various factors (e.g., cultural) contributing to PAD, the less prominent visual cues of plants (e.g., color) might be one of the main features making them less noticeable to human perception. Here, we investigated whether PAD affects basic numerosity perception, which represents a fundamental cognitive ability that allows individuals to interpret and interact with their surroundings. Across three experiments, we compared how participants perceive the numerosity of plants (specifically trees), animals, and minerals. Participants completed two tasks: an estimation task, in which they reported the exact number of items in a single set and a comparison task, which required them to discriminate numerosity between two sets of items. In Experiment 1, both tasks employed colored images. We hypothesized that participants would underestimate the number of plant items in comparison to animals and minerals, given that plant stimuli typically attract less attention. In Experiment 2, black and white images were used to test whether the green color of plants contributes to PAD. In Experiment 3, all items were rotated of 180° to disrupt semantic recognition and assess whether PAD arises from higher-level cognitive processes. Results revealed a consistent underestimation of plants in Experiment 1 and 2, but this effect diminished in Experiment 3. The reduction of this effect suggests that semantic recognition processes may contribute to PAD. These results highlight how cognitive biases toward plants can influence basic perceptual judgments essential for everyday functioning. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00