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.
References
[1]
Barth H, Kanwisher N, Spelke E (2003) The construction of large number representations in adults. Cognition 86: 201–221.
[2]
Halberda J, Feigenson L (2008) Developmental change in the acuity of the “Number Sense”: The Approximate Number System in 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds and adults. Dev Psychol 44: 1457–1465.
[3]
Izard V, Dehaene S (2008) Calibrating the mental number line. Cognition 106: 1221–1247.
[4]
Dehaene S, Changeux JP (1993) Development of elementary numerical abilities: a neuronal model. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5: 390–407.
[5]
Hyde DC, Spelke ES (2011) Neural signatures of number processing in human infants: evidence for two core systems underlying numerical cognition. Dev Sci 14: 360–371.
[6]
Gilmore C, Attridge N, Inglis M (2011) Measuring the approximate number system. Q J Exp Psychol (Colchester) 64: 2099–2109.
[7]
Piazza M, Facoetti A, Trussardi AN, Berteletti I, Conte S, et al. (2010) Developmental trajectory of number acuity reveals a severe impairment in developmental dyscalculia. Cognition 116: 33–41.
[8]
Gebuis T, Reynvoet B (in press) The interplay between non-symbolic number and its continuous visual properties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
[9]
Rousselle L, Noel MP (2008) The development of automatic numerosity processing in preschoolers: evidence for numerosity-perceptual interference. Dev Psychol 44: 544–560.
[10]
Rousselle L, Palmers E, Noel MP (2004) Magnitude comparison in preschoolers: what counts? Influence of perceptual variables. J Exp Child Psychol 87: 57–84.
[11]
Soltesz F, Szucs D, Szucs L (2010) Relationships between magnitude representation, counting and memory in 4- to 7-year-old children: A developmental study. Behav Brain Funct 6: 13.
[12]
Hurewitz F, Gelman R, Schnitzer B (2006) Sometimes area counts more than number. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103: 19599–19604.
[13]
Allik J, Tuulmets T (1991) Occupancy model of perceived numerosity. Percept Psychophys 49: 303–314.
[14]
Lyons IM, Ansari D, Beilock SL (in press) Symbolic Estrangement: Evidence Against a Strong Association Between Numerical Symbols and the Quantities They Represent. J Exp Psychol Gen.
[15]
Dakin SC, Tibber MS, Greenwood JA, Kingdom FA, Morgan MJ (2012) A common visual metric for approximate number and density. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: 19552–19557.
[16]
Dehaene S, Izard V, Piazza M (2005) Control over non-numerical parameters in numerosity experiments. Available: .
[17]
Gebuis T, Reynvoet B (2011) Generating non-symbolic number stimuli. Behav Res Methods 43: 981–986.
[18]
Piazza M, Izard V, Pinel P, Le Bihan D, Dehaene S (2004) Tuning curves for approximate numerosity in the human intraparietal sulcus. Neuron 44: 547–555.
[19]
van Oeffelen MP, Vos PG (1982) A probabilistic model for the discrimination of visual number. Percept Psychophys 32: 163–170.
[20]
Lemaire P, Lecacheur M (2007) Aging and numerosity estimation. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 62: P305–312.
[21]
Miller AL, Baker RA (1968) The effects of shape, size, heterogeneity, and instructional set on the judgment of visual number. Am J Psychol 81: 83–91.