Elsevier

Cognition

Volume 113, Issue 1, October 2009, Pages 1-13
Cognition

Number estimation relies on a set of segmented objects

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.07.002Get rights and content

Abstract

How do we estimate the number of objects in a set? Two types of visual representations might underlie this ability – an unsegmented visual image or a segmented collection of discrete objects. We manipulated whether individual objects were isolated from each other or grouped into pairs by irrelevant lines. If number estimation operates over an unsegmented image, then this manipulation should not affect estimates. But if number estimation relies on a segmented image, then grouping pairs of objects into single units should lead to lower estimates. In Experiment 1 participants underestimated the number of grouped objects, relative to disconnected objects in which the connecting lines were ‘broken’. Experiment 2 presents evidence that this segmentation process occurred broadly across the entire set of objects. In Experiment 3, a staircase procedure provides a quantitative measure of the underestimation effect. Experiment 4 shows that the strength of the grouping effect was equally strong for a single thin line, and the effect can be eliminated by a small break in the line. These results provide direct evidence that number estimation relies on a segmented input.

Section snippets

Experiment 1

Experiment 1 tested whether connecting pairs of squares with a set of lines reduces estimates of the number of individual squares in a display. Grouping multiple regions of a display so that they become physically continuous is a particularly strong grouping manipulation that may even precede other types of grouping, such as color or shape similarity (Palmer & Rock, 1994). This connectivity grouping also appears to be mandatory for small groups of objects that are in the current focus of

Experiment 2

In Experiment 1, participants estimated the number of squares in each display within 450 ms, suggesting that they did not count them serially (Gallistel and Gelman, 1992, Trick and Pylyshyn, 1993). While these results suggest that participants generated their estimates from a broad snapshot of each display, it is also possible that participants relied on a sampling process in which only a few items from a small portion of each display were counted and compared for each trial. A similar ambiguity

Experiment 3

The first two experiments show that participants rapidly segment pairs of squares that are connected together, in a spatially broad way, leading to an underestimation of the number of distinct squares appearing in a connected display. While the linear correlation between accuracy differences and percent connectedness suggests that the magnitude of the effect depends on the percentage of connected pairs, it should be possible to quantitatively determine the amount of underestimation. The present

Experiment 4

The previous experiments demonstrate that connecting squares with a set of irrelevant lines causes observers to underestimate the number of squares in the display. However using four lines may have led observers to perceive the squares and lines as parts of as a three-dimensional extended cube. Also, using four parallel lines might have led to a stronger low-spatial frequency representation of a single large bar, which might alter unexpected aspects of the displays, such as object size or

General discussion

In Experiment 1, we found that connecting a display of squares into pairs with lines led participants to greatly underestimate the number of squares present in the display, relative to when the connecting lines were broken. Participants underestimated connected displays despite explicit instructions that the lines were irrelevant and should be ignored throughout the task. Even practiced participants, including the authors, could not avoid greatly underestimating displays of connected elements.

Broad segmentation

The finding that number estimation operates over a segmented collection is also important to our understanding of visual processing more generally because it suggests that the larger visual world is segmented broadly. A fundamental question about any visual process is whether it can occur broadly over the visual field, or whether the scope of the process is restricted to a narrow subset of incoming visual information (Neisser, 1967). In general, simpler processes are thought to occur broadly,

Acknowledgements

G.A.A. was supported by NEI/NIH fellowship F32 EY016982. We thank Patrick Cavanagh, Stanislas Dehaene, Laura Ortega, Julia Mossbridge, Lance Rips, Liz Spelke, and Jeremy Wolfe for helpful discussion.

References (72)

  • C.R. Gallistel et al.

    Preverbal and verbal counting and computation

    Cognition

    (1992)
  • J. Intriligator et al.

    The spatial resolution of visual attention

    Cognitive Psychology

    (2001)
  • I. Kovacs et al.

    Medial-point description of shape: A representation for action coding and its psychophysical correlates

    Vision Research

    (1998)
  • C.A. Kurby et al.

    Segmentation in the perception and memory of events

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences

    (2008)
  • D. Navon

    Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception

    Cognitive Psychology

    (1977)
  • A. Nieder

    The number domain – Can we count on parietal cortex?

    Neuron

    (2004)
  • A. Oliva

    Gist of the scene

  • P. Pinel et al.

    Distributed and overlapping cerebral representations of number, size, and luminance during comparative judgments

    Neuron

    (2004)
  • B.J. Scholl

    Objects and attention: The state of the art

    Cognition

    (2001)
  • B.J. Scholl et al.

    What is a visual object? Evidence from target merging in multiple object tracking

    Cognition

    (2001)
  • M. Shuman et al.

    Numerical magnitude in the human parietal lobe: Tests of representational generality and domain specificity

    Neuron

    (2004)
  • C. Sophian et al.

    How do people apprehend large numerosities?

    Cognition

    (2008)
  • R.J. Watt et al.

    A theory of the primitive spatial code in human vision

    Vision Research

    (1985)
  • J.M. Wolfe et al.

    Preattentive object files: Shapeless bundles of basic features

    Vision Research

    (1997)
  • F. Xu et al.

    Large number discrimination in 6-month-old infants

    Cognition

    (2000)
  • J. Allik et al.

    Occupancy model of perceived numerosity

    Perception and Psychophysics

    (1991)
  • J. Allik et al.

    Size invariance in visual number discrimination

    Psychological Research

    (1991)
  • Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2009). Spatial ensemble statistics are efficient codes that can be represented with...
  • G.A. Alvarez et al.

    The representation of simple ensemble features outside the focus of attention

    Psychological Science

    (2008)
  • D. Ariely

    Seeing sets: Representation by statistical properties

    Psychological Science

    (2001)
  • M.J. Beran et al.

    Nonverbal estimation during numerosity judgements by adult humans

    Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

    (2006)
  • W. Bevan et al.

    The influence of context upon the estimation of number

    American Journal of Psychology

    (1963)
  • W. Bevan et al.

    Assimilation and contrast in the estimation of number

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

    (1964)
  • M.H. Birnbaum et al.

    Subjective correlation and the size-numerosity illusion

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

    (1974)
  • J.D. Cohen et al.

    A systems-level perspective on attention and cognitive control: Guided activation, adaptive gating, conflict monitoring, and exploitation vs. exploration

  • S. Dehaene et al.

    Development of elementary numerical abilities: A neuronal model

    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

    (1993)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text