To date, researchers investigating nonsymbolic number processes devoted little attention to the visual properties of their stimuli. This is unexpected, as nonsymbolic number is defined by its visual characteristics. When number changes, its visual properties change accordingly. In this study, we investigated the influence of different visual properties on nonsymbolic number processes and show that the current assumptions about the relation between number and its visual characteristics are incorrect. Similar to previous studies, we controlled the visual cues: Each visual cue was not predictive of number. Nevertheless, participants showed congruency effects induced by the visual properties of the stimuli. These congruency effects scaled with the number of visual cues manipulated, implicating that people do not extract number from a visual scene independent of its visual cues. Instead, number judgments are based on the integration of information from multiple visual cues. Consequently, current ways to control the visual cues of the number stimuli are insufficient, as they control only a single variable at the time. And, more important, the existence of an approximate number system that can extract number independent of the visual cues appears unlikely. We therefore propose that number judgment is the result of the weighing of several distinct visual cues.

Studies investigating nonsymbolic numbers (e.g., dot arrays) are confronted with the problem that changes in numerosity are always accompanied by changes in the visual properties of the stimulus. It is therefore debated whether the visual properties of the stimulus rather than number can explain the results obtained in studies investigating nonsymbolic number processing. In this report, we present a program (available at http://titiagebuis.eu/Materials.html; note that the program is designed to work with the Psychophysics Toolbox in MATLAB) that exports information about the visual properties of stimuli that co-vary with number (area extended, item size, total surface, density, and circumference). Consequently, insight into the relation between the visual properties of the stimulus and numerical distance can be achieved, and post hoc analyses can be conducted to directly reveal whether numerical distance or (some combinations of) the visual properties of a stimulus could be the most likely candidate underlying the results. Here, we report data that demonstrate the program's usefulness for research on nonsymbolic number stimuli.

It is widely accepted that human and nonhuman species possess a specialized system to process large approximate numerosities. The theory of an evolutionarily ancient approximate number system (ANS) has received converging support from developmental studies, comparative experiments, neuroimaging, and computational modelling, and it is one of the most dominant and influential theories in numerical cognition. The existence of an ANS system is significant, as it is believed to be the building block of numerical development in general. The acuity of the ANS is related to future arithmetic achievements, and intervention strategies therefore aim to improve the ANS. Here we critically review current evidence supporting the existence of an ANS. We show that important shortcomings and confounds exist in the empirical studies on human and non-human animals as well as the logic used to build computational models that support the ANS theory. We conclude that rather than taking the ANS theory for granted, a more comprehensive explanation might be provided by a sensory-integration system that compares or estimates large approximate numerosities by integrating the different sensory cues comprising number stimuli.

It has been suggested that a simple non-symbolic magnitude comparison task is sufficient to measure the acuity of a putative Approximate Number System (ANS). A proposed measure of the ANS, the so-called “internal Weber fraction” (w), would provide a clear measure of ANS acuity. However, ANS studies have never presented adequate evidence that visual stimulus parameters did not compromise measurements of w to such extent that w is actually driven by visual instead of numerical processes. We therefore investigated this question by testing non-symbolic magnitude discrimination in seven-year-old children and adults. We manipulated/controlled visual parameters in a more stringent manner than usual. As a consequence of these controls, in some trials numerical cues correlated positively with number while in others they correlated negatively with number. This congruency effect strongly correlated with w, which means that congruency effects were probably driving effects in w. Consequently, in both adults and children congruency had a major impact on the fit of the model underlying the computation of w. Furthermore, children showed larger congruency effects than adults. This suggests that ANS tasks are seriously compromised by the visual stimulus parameters, which cannot be controlled. Hence, they are not pure measures of the ANS and some putative w or ratio effect differences between children and adults in previous ANS studies may be due to the differential influence of the visual stimulus parameters in children and adults. In addition, because the resolution of congruency effects relies on inhibitory (interference suppression) function, some previous ANS findings were probably influenced by the developmental state of inhibitory processes especially when comparing children with developmental dyscalculia and typically developing children.

Mainstream theory suggests that the approximate number system supports our non-symbolic number abilities (e.g. estimating or comparing different sets of items). It is argued that this system can extract number independently of the visual cues present in the stimulus (diameter, aggregate surface, etc.). However, in a recent report we argue that this might not be the case. We showed that participants combined information from different visual cues to derive their answers. While numerosity comparison requires a rough comparison of two sets of items (smaller versus larger), numerosity estimation requires a more precise mechanism. It could therefore be that numerosity estimation, in contrast to numerosity comparison, might rely on the approximate number system. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a numerosity estimation experiment. We controlled for the visual cues according to current standards: each single visual property was not informative about numerosity. Nevertheless, the results reveal that participants were influenced by the visual properties of the dot arrays. They gave a larger estimate when the dot arrays consisted of dots with, on average, a smaller diameter, aggregate surface or density but a larger convex hull. The reliance on visual cues to estimate numerosity suggests that the existence of an approximate number system that can extract numerosity independently of the visual cues is unlikely. Instead, we propose that humans estimate numerosity by weighing the different visual cues present in the stimuli.