I read the article, but it didn't answer some questions I had. Did the lines used in the mapping have defined lengths, and was it accounted for that the subjec

I read the article, but it didn't answer some questions I had. Did the lines used in the mapping have defined lengths, and was it accounted for that the subjects could have given a wider berth for initial numbers before realizing they were running out of space? How close was each result to true logarithmic space? I am inclined to believe the conclusion because many of our senses (and thoughts themselves) are rooted in logarithmic mappings, such as a higher sensitivity to lower frequency sounds and light conditions, logarithmic pain tolerance, adaptation rates, etc. but I would love to have more information about the results.