August 2012
Volume 12, Issue 9
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2012
Subitizing is resource-limited and not preattentive
Author Affiliations
  • Bjorn Hubert-Wallander
    Department of Psychology, University of Washington
  • Jeffrey Y. Lin
    Department of Psychology, University of Washington
  • Sung Jun Joo
    Department of Psychology, University of Washington
  • Scott O. Murray
    Department of Psychology, University of Washington
  • Geoffrey M. Boynton
    Department of Psychology, University of Washington
Journal of Vision August 2012, Vol.12, 1157. doi:10.1167/12.9.1157
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Bjorn Hubert-Wallander, Jeffrey Y. Lin, Sung Jun Joo, Scott O. Murray, Geoffrey M. Boynton; Subitizing is resource-limited and not preattentive. Journal of Vision 2012;12(9):1157. doi: 10.1167/12.9.1157.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Classic research tells us there are two distinct systems that allow us to count the number of items in a visual display. When the number of items is large, counting is slow, effortful, and prone to error. But when the number of items is small (usually less than 5), a supposedly preattentive process called subitizing appears to operate, quickly and accurately apprehending the number of items present. Recently, however, the preattentive nature of subitizing has come into question. Here, we used a dual-task version of the classic subitizing task in order determine if subitizing is a resource-limited process. Participants were asked to accurately count the number of items in two arrays presented in quick succession. We hypothesized that if counting small numbers of items relies on preattentive or parallel processes, then the number of items in the first array should have no effect on counting performance in the second array, as long as either or both arrays were in the traditionally-defined subitizing range. Instead, we observed a continuous linear decline in accuracy for counting in the second array as a function of number of items in the first array, even when the number of items in the first array was small. Furthermore, the effect of the first array was clearly present even when the analysis was restricted to small set sizes in the second array. Interestingly, a follow-up experiment demonstrated that when subjects were not required to count the number of items in the first array, the first array had no effect on accuracy for the second array, ruling out perceptual factors and suggesting that the resource that limits subitizing performance may indeed be attention. Our results demonstrate that subitizing both affects and is affected by the amount of cognitive resources available to the viewer and may not be preattentive.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×