What is magic about the magical number four?

Simons, Dietrich; Langheinrich, Dietrich

doi:10.1007/bf00308426

Cited by 51 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Subitizing processes are reflected by quasi-perfect numerosity judgements and by a minimal increase in naming time when numerosities increase. The largest number of items that typical infants and adult individuals can estimate accurately and rapidly is approximately four (Deheane & Cohen, 1994;Mandler & Shebo, 1982;Simons & Langheinrich, 1982;Trick & Pylyshyn, 1993, 1994. The parallel nature of subitizing processing is supported by the minimal increase in naming time between numerosities one and four (Trick & Pylyshyn, 1993, 1994.…”

Section: Quantification In Typical and Brain-damaged Individualsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Quantification Judgement in High Functioning Autism: Superior or Different?

Gagnon

Mottron

Bherer

et al. 2004

J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the hypothesis of superior quantification abilities of persons with high functioning autism (HFA). Fourteen HFA individuals (mean age: 15 years) individually matched with 14 typically developing (TD) participants (gender, chronological age, full-scale IQ) were asked to quantify as accurately and quickly as possible numerosities, represented by the number of squares (2-9) presented in random configurations. In addition, the visual angles of stimuli presentation were manipulated in order to induce a local (large visual angle) and a global (small visual angle) bias on participants' quantification performance (accuracy and naming time). Findings revealed no effect of local and global bias of stimuli presentation in the two groups' performance, and no superior quantification abilities in HFA participants. However, analyses of the naming time slopes for identification by HFA participants of small consecutive numerosities (2-5), suggested their use of counting processes instead of subitizing (or immediate apprehension of numerosities) as in TD participants. Possible explanations for these results are discussed with reference to models of locally-oriented information processing in autism.

show abstract

Section: Quantification In Typical and Brain-damaged Individualsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Quantification Judgement in High Functioning Autism: Superior or Different?

Gagnon

Mottron

Bherer

et al. 2004

J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several species, including humans, exhibit a numerical competency threshold at 4 (Agrillo et al, 2008;Cowan, 2010;Gómez-Laplaza and Gerlai, 2011a;Jevons, 1871;Kaufman et al, 1949;Simons and Langheinrich, 1982;Trick and Pylyshyn, 1994). This threshold is observed in visual object and tactile stimulation estimation in humans (Dehaene and Cohen, 1994;Jevons, 1871;Piazza et al, 2002;Riggs et al, 2006;Starkey and Cooper, 1995), quantity discrimination in fish (Agrillo et al, 2008;Gómez-Laplaza and Gerlai, 2011a;Seguin and Gerlai, 2017), as well as protocounting and number-generalization in honeybees (Boysen, 1988;Dacke and Srinivasan, 2008;Gross et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Surpassing the subitizing threshold: appetitive–aversive conditioning improves discrimination of numerosities in honeybees

Howard

Avarguès‐Weber

Garcia

et al. 2019

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals including humans, fish and honeybees have demonstrated a quantity discrimination threshold at four objects, often known as subitizing elements. Discrimination between numerosities at or above the subitizing range is considered a complex capacity. In the current study, we trained and tested two groups of bees on their ability to differentiate between quantities (4 versus 5 through to 4 versus 8) when trained with different conditioning procedures. Bees trained with appetitive (reward) differential conditioning demonstrated no significant learning of this task, and limited discrimination above the subitizing range. In contrast, bees trained using appetitive-aversive (reward-aversion) differential conditioning demonstrated significant learning and subsequent discrimination of all tested comparisons from 4 versus 5 to 4 versus 8. Our results show conditioning procedure is vital to performance on numerically challenging tasks, and may inform future research on numerical abilities in other animals.

show abstract

“…Later research has more rigorously addressed this issue and suggested that that number is closer to four, plus or minus zero. 7 When the information available to process exceeds human ability to do so in the time allotted, this can lead either to sub-optimal choices or to coping strategies such as delaying choice.…”

Section: Information Overloadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clicking through overload: When choice overload can actually increase choice

Huff¹,

Johnson

2014

J Direct Data Digit Mark Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The existence of choice overload in the behaviour of online consumers is investigated through an experimental product category (electronic pencil sharpeners) on a fully functional online retail website for office supplies that was created for the field experiment. Emails were sent to potential customers with an assortment of product descriptions and links that led to a product category landing page on the retail website where visitors were then presented with an assortment of products. We find that the likelihood of click-through (either in the email or on the landing page) at first increases with the number of choices presented and then decreases consistent with choice overload. However, we also find that click-through subsequently increases as the number of choices increases after overload occurs. This suggests that another effect is also at work in the choice situations. We provide an explanation and evidence for this post-decline increase in clickthrough -specifically, as the number of link choices increases, not only does choice overload increase, but also the promise of richer information, which can help resolve or reduce the overload for the mere 'low cost' of a click.

show abstract

What is magic about the magical number four?

Cited by 51 publications

References 12 publications

Quantification Judgement in High Functioning Autism: Superior or Different?

Quantification Judgement in High Functioning Autism: Superior or Different?

Surpassing the subitizing threshold: appetitive–aversive conditioning improves discrimination of numerosities in honeybees

Clicking through overload: When choice overload can actually increase choice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About