Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-nlwjb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T08:09:46.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The interplay between selective attention and summary statistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 November 2025

Yonatan Vanunu Open the ORCID record for Yonatan Vanunu [Opens in a new window]  and
Roger Ratcliff Open the ORCID record for Roger Ratcliff [Opens in a new window]
Yonatan Vanunu*
Affiliation:
Coller School of Management, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel yvanunu@tauex.tau.ac.ul Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, USA rogerratcliff22@gmail.com
Roger Ratcliff
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, USA rogerratcliff22@gmail.com
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rosenholtz argues that summary statistics explain attentional phenomena via peripheral vision. While we acknowledge their role, we challenge the claim that they serve as an alternative mechanism. Instead, we argue that summary statistics and selective attention are interdependent, shaping visual perception under limited capacity, as evidenced by perceptual biases in numerosity judgments and mean estimations of shape size, color, and position.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 48 , 2025 , e158
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

De Fockert, J. W., & Marchant, A. P. (2008). Attention modulates set representation by statistical properties. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 789–794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Gardelle, V., & Summerfield, C. (2011). Robust averaging during perceptual judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(32), 13341–13346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hong, M. H., Witt, J. K., & Szafir, D. A. (2021). The weighted average illusion: Biases in perceived mean position in scatterplots. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1), 987–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kunar, M. A., Watson, D. G., Tsetsos, K., & Chater, N. (2017). The influence of attention on value integration. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 1615–1627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myczek, K., & Simons, D. J. (2008). Better than average: Alternatives to statistical summary representations for rapid judgments of average size. Perception & psychophysics, 70, 772–788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenbaum, D., de Gardelle, V., & Usher, M. (2021). Ensemble perception: Extracting the average of perceptual versus numerical stimuli. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 83, 956–969.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenholtz, R. (2024). Visual attention in crisis. Behavioral and brain sciences, 1–32.Google ScholarPubMed
Spitzer, B., Waschke, L., & Summerfield, C. (2017). Selective overweighting of larger magnitudes during noisy numerical comparison. Nature human behaviour, 1(8), 0145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsetsos, K., Chater, N., & Usher, M. (2012). Salience driven value integration explains decision biases and preference reversal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(24), 9659–9664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanunu, Y., & Donnelly, K. (2024, April 16). Center of Attention: Spatial Position Affects Quantity Judgments and Product Preference. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mn24r CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanunu, Y., Hotaling, J. M., Le Pelley, M. E., & Newell, B. R. (2021). How top-down and bottom-up attention modulate risky choice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(39), e2025646118. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2025646118.Google Scholar
Vanunu, Y., Hotaling, J. M., & Newell, B. R. (2020). Elucidating the differential impact of extreme-outcomes in perceptual and preferential choice. Cognitive Psychology, 119, 101274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanunu, Y., Pachur, T., & Usher, M. (2019). Constructing preference from sequential samples: The impact of evaluation format on risk attitudes. Decision, 6(3), 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanunu, Y., & Ratcliff, R. (2025). A selective sampling account of forming numerosity representations. Psychological Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000575 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed