Regular Distribution Inhibits Generic Numerosity Processing

Liu, Wei; Zhao, Yajun; Wang, Miao; Zhang, Zhijun

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02080

Cited by 11 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides the absence of any differences between the radial and tangential condition with low numerosity, low numerosity also differed from larger numerosities in regard to the accuracy of participants' estimates In contrast to larger numerosities where the number of discs was overestimated, it was rather accurate for low numerosity. The overestimation with larger numerosities diverged from the general underestimation found in numerosity studies (Anobile et al, 2020;Au & Watanabe, 2013;Chakravarthi & Bertamini, 2020;Krueger, 1982Krueger, , 1984Liu et al, 2017;Liu et al, 2018). The direct estimation task in contrast to the typical discrimination task could be one reason for the overestimation in our study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 86%

Anisotropic representations of visual space modulate visual numerosity estimation

Li¹,

Reynvoet²,

Sayim³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans can estimate the number of visually displayed items without counting. This capacity of numerosity perception has often been attributed to a dedicated system to estimate numerosity, or alternatively to the exploitation of various stimulus features, such as density, convex hull, the size of items and occupancy area. The distribution of the presented items is usually not varied with eccentricity in the visual field. However, our visual fields are highly asymmetric, and to date, it is unclear how inhomogeneities of the visual field impact numerosity perception. Besides eccentricity, a pronounced asymmetry is the radial-tangential anisotropy. For example, in crowding, radially placed flankers interfere more strongly with target perception than tangentially placed flankers. Similarly, in redundancy masking, the number of perceived items in repeating patterns is reduced when the items are arranged radially but not when they are arranged tangentially. Here, we investigated whether numerosity perception is subject to the radial-tangential anisotropy of spatial vision to shed light on the underlying topology of numerosity perception. Observers were presented with varying numbers of discs and asked to report the perceived number. There were two conditions. Discs were predominantly arranged radially in the “radial” condition and tangentially in the “tangential” condition. Additionally, the spacing between discs was scaled with eccentricity. Physical properties, such as average eccentricity, average spacing, convex hull, and density were kept as similar as possible in the two conditions. Radial arrangements were expected to yield underestimation compared to tangential arrangements. Consistent with the hypothesis, numerosity estimates in the radial condition were lower compared to the tangential condition. Magnitudes of radial alignment (as well as predicted crowding strength) correlated with the observed numerosity estimates. Our results demonstrate a robust radial-tangential anisotropy, suggesting that the topology of spatial vision determines numerosity estimation. We suggest that asymmetries of spatial vision should be taken into account when investigating numerosity estimation.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 86%

Anisotropic representations of visual space modulate visual numerosity estimation

Li¹,

Reynvoet²,

Sayim³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inhibition of individuation is accompanied by inhibition of generic numerosity processing, which refers to the processing underlying numeral tasks with a moderate number of randomly distributed stimuli ( Dehaene, 1996 ; Halberda et al, 2008 ; Anobile et al, 2014 ). Processing features that are typically revealed in these tasks can be absent when individuation is interrupted ( Liu et al, 2017 , 2018 ). Besides the crowding-like effect ( Anobile et al, 2015 ), dot distribution can also disturb generic numeral processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinct Mechanisms in Number Comparison of Random and Regular Dots: An ERP Study

Liu

Zhao

Wang

et al. 2022

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerosity comparison for regular patterns shows different features compared with that for random ones in previous studies, suggesting an underlying mechanism distinct from numerosity. In this study, we went further to compare the event-related potentials (ERP) components in numerosity processing of random and regular patterns, which are identical in all aspects of texture features except for the distribution. ERP components were recorded and analyzed while participants compared which of the two successively presented sets was more numerous. P2p amplitude was revealed to be significantly weaker for regular patterns compared with that for random patterns over right occipital-parietal cites, whereas no difference was found for P1 or N1 components. The difference in P2p amplitude, which is consistent with the behavior dissociation revealed in our previous studies, suggests that regular distribution can trigger distinct processing in numeral comparison tasks. Processing of continuous magnitudes or configuration cannot explain the decrease in P2p amplitude for regular distributed patterns. Therefore, this study further supports that P2p is mediated by numerosity processing.

show abstract

“…Numerous studies [37][38][39][40][41][42] have found that when the dots in the array are connected by lines or placed in a closed area, the number of dots will be underestimated. This phenomenon is termed the "connectedness illusion" [37][38][39][40][41][42] . Connectedness and closeness are similar to the extrinsic grouping cues used in the present study (connectedness and common region).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grouping Strategies in Numerosity Estimation between Intrinsic and Extrinsic Grouping Cues

Pan

Yang

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of items in an array can be quickly and accurately estimated by dividing the array into subgroups, in a strategy termed “groupitizing.” When attempting to remember a telephone number, it is better to do so by dividing the number into several segments. Different forms of visual grouping can affect the accuracy of the enumeration of a large set of items. Previous studies have found that when groupitizing, enumeration accuracy is improved by grouping arrays using visual proximity and color similarity. Based on Gestalt theory, Palmer (1992) divided perceptual grouping into intrinsic (e.g., proximity, similarity) and extrinsic (e.g., connectedness, common region) principles. Studies have investigated groupitizing effects of intrinsic grouping. However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has explored groupitizing effects for extrinsic grouping cues. Therefore, this study explored whether extrinsic grouping cues differed from intrinsic grouping cues for groupitizing effects in numerosity estimation. The results showed that both extrinsic and intrinsic grouping cues improved enumeration accuracy. The extrinsic grouping cues were more accurate in terms of sensory precision of the numerosity estimation than were the intrinsic grouping cues.

show abstract

Regular Distribution Inhibits Generic Numerosity Processing

Cited by 11 publications

References 33 publications

Anisotropic representations of visual space modulate visual numerosity estimation

Anisotropic representations of visual space modulate visual numerosity estimation

Distinct Mechanisms in Number Comparison of Random and Regular Dots: An ERP Study

Grouping Strategies in Numerosity Estimation between Intrinsic and Extrinsic Grouping Cues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About