Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-01-2005 | Original Article

Hierarchical number estimation

Auteurs: Jay Friedenberg, William Limratana

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2005

Abstract

We investigated number estimation using dot patterns grouped by proximity into larger clusters. Participants estimated the number of dots and clusters in separate trials. Estimation was most accurate when the numbers of elements on both scales were the same. When the number of elements on the unattended scale was higher, overestimation occurred. Conversely, when the number of elements on the unattended scale was lower, underestimation occurred. In Experiment 2, response cues were blocked to reduce any tendency toward attending the irrelevant level. The results were essentially unchanged, indicating response confusion alone cannot account for the effect. The data support the existence of an opposite scale effect in which the number of elements at the unattended level influence the processing of number.

vorige artikel Foreground–background segmentation and attention: A change blindness study

volgende artikel Categorical and metric distance information in mental representations derived from route and survey descriptions

Allik, J., & Tuulmets, T. (1991). Occupancy model of perceived numerosity. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 303–314.

Atkinson, J., Francis, M. R., & Campbell, F. W. (1976). The dependence of the visual numerosity limit on orientation, colour, and grouping in the stimulus. Perception, 5, 335–342.PubMed

Briand, K. A. (1993). Efficient filtering of irrelevant global and local information when target level and location are random. Psychological Research, 55, 264–269.

Brown, T. L., Gore, C. L., Carr, Thomas H. (2002). Visual attention and word recognition in Stroop color naming: Is word recognition “automatic?” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 220–240.CrossRef

Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (1994). Dissociable mechanisms of subitizing and counting: Neuropsychological evidence from simultanagnosic patients. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 958–975.CrossRefPubMed

Durgin, F. H. (1995). Texture density adaptation and the perceived numerosity and distribution of texture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 149–169.CrossRef

Eriksen, C. W., & St. James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 225–240.

Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and computation. Cognition, 44, 43–74.CrossRefPubMed

Ginsburg, N. (1991). Numerosity estimation as a function of stimulus organization. Perception, 20, 681–686.PubMed

Ginsburg, N., & Nicholls, A. (1988). Perceived numerosity as a function of item size. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 656–658.PubMed

Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-level theory. An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper & Row.

Intriligator, J., & Cavanagh, P. (2001). The spatial resolution of visual attention. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 171–216.CrossRefPubMed

Kaufman, E., Lord, M., Reese, T., & Volkmann, J. (1949). The discrimination of visual number. American Journal of Psychology, 62, 498–525.

Kimchi, R. (1992). Primacy of wholistic processing and global/local paradigm: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 24–38.CrossRefPubMed

Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383.

Oyama, T. (1986). The effect of stimulus organization on numerosity discrimination. Japanese Psychological Research, 28, 77–86.

Paquet, L., & Merikle, P. M. (1988). Global precedence in attended and unattended objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 89–100.CrossRefPubMed

Paquet, P. (1992). Global and local processing in unattended objects: A failure to induce local processing dominance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 512–529.CrossRefPubMed

Sawyer, T. F., & Wesensten, N. J. (1994). Anchoring effects on judgement, estimation, and discrimination of numerosity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 91–98.PubMed

Stoffer, T. H. (1993). The time course of attentional zooming: A comparison of voluntary and involuntary allocation of attention to the levels of compound stimuli. Psychological Research, 56, 14–25.PubMed

Trick, L. M., & Enns, J. T. (1997). Clusters precede shapes in perceptual organization. Psychological Science, 8, 124–129.

Trick, L. M., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1993). What enumeration studies can show us about spatial attention: Evidence for limited capacity preattentive processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 331–351.CrossRefPubMed

Van Oeffelen, M. P., & Vos, P. G. (1982). Configural effects on the enumeration of dots: Counting by groups. Memory and Cognition, 10, 396–404.

Wandell, B. A. (1995). Foundations of vision. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

Titel: Hierarchical number estimation
Auteurs: Jay Friedenberg
William Limratana
Publicatiedatum: 01-01-2005
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2005
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0169-y

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2005

Selection and consolidation of objects and actions

Categorical and metric distance information in mental representations derived from route and survey descriptions

Right-left prevalence with task-irrelevant spatial codes

The attentional blink: Resource depletion or temporary loss of control?

Mechanisms underlying spatial coding in a multiple-item Simon task

Foreground–background segmentation and attention: A change blindness study