Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-5qg8f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T18:46:57.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multitudes are adaptable magnitudes in the estimation of number

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2017

Frank H. Durgin
Frank H. Durgin*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA 19081 fdurgin1@swarthmore.edu http://www.swarthmore.edu/profile/frank-durgin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Visual number comparison does not require participants to choose a unit, whereas units are fundamental to the definition of number. Studies using magnitude estimation rather than comparison show that number perception is compressed dramatically past about 20 units. Even estimates of 5–20 items are increasingly susceptible to effects of visual adaptation, suggesting a rather narrow range in which subitizing-like categorization processes blend into greater reliance on adaptable magnitude information.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e170
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allik, J. & Tuulmets, T. (1991) Occupancy model of perceived numerosity. Perception & Psychophysics 49:303–14.Google Scholar
Anobile, G., Cicchini, G. M. & Burr, D. C. (2014) Separate mechanisms for perception of numerosity and density. Psychological Science 25(1):265–70. doi: 10.1177/0956797613501520.Google Scholar
Durgin, F. H. (1995) Texture density adaptation and the perceived numerosity and distribution of texture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21(1):149–69. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.21.1.149.Google Scholar
Durgin, F. H. (2016) Magnitudes in the coding of visual multitudes: Evidence from adaptation. In: Continuous issues in numerical cognition: How many or how much? ed. Henik, A., pp. 245–70. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Euclid, (300 BC/1956) The elements, trans. Heath, T. L.. Dover.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. (2004) Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science 306:496–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huk, A. C. & Durgin, F. H. (1996) Concordance of numerosity comparison and numerosity estimation: Evidence from adaptation [abstract]. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 37:1341.Google Scholar
Kaufman, E. L., Lord, M. W., Reese, T. W. & Volkmann, J. (1949) The discrimination of visual number. American Journal of Psychology 62:498–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, L. E. (1972) Perceived numerosity. Perception & Psychophysics 11:5–9.Google Scholar