July 2013
Volume 13, Issue 9
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2013
The Independence of Visual Number and Area Processing: Evidence from Psychophysics, Development, and Eye-Tracking
Author Affiliations
  • Darko Odic
    Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University
  • Justin Halberda
    Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University
Journal of Vision July 2013, Vol.13, 1259. doi:10.1167/13.9.1259
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Darko Odic, Justin Halberda; The Independence of Visual Number and Area Processing: Evidence from Psychophysics, Development, and Eye-Tracking. Journal of Vision 2013;13(9):1259. doi: 10.1167/13.9.1259.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Although human and non-human animals can nonverbally estimate number, it remains unknown how the visual system extracts the number of objects from a scene. One reasonable and intuitive proposal is that number extraction begins by estimation of the total surface area that the items subsume, and then proceeds by combining this estimate with information from other dimensions, such as density (Durgin, 1995; Dakin et al., 2008). Here, we directly compare performance on number discrimination and surface area discrimination in order to test whether the encoding and representation of number and area is shared or independent. First, we tracked eye movements of observers who viewed identical displays of blobs and judged which color was greater in either number or cumulative surface area (Fig. 1a). Both number and area discrimination obeyed Weber’s law, but area performance was superior to and uncorrelated with number performance (Fig. 1b,c). Critically, we found distinct eye movement patterns for the two tasks: while number trials included many saccades and short gazes, area trials involved few saccades and long gazes. This suggests that observers seek out different visual information during number discrimination than during area discrimination, even though the displays are identical. Second, we found that number and area remain distinct throughout development. A cross-sectional sample of 3-6 year olds and adults discriminated both number (with an array of dots) and area (with a blob image; Fig 2a). Once again, both number and area obeyed Weber’s law, but area performance was superior to and uncorrelated with number performance (Fig. 2c). Overall, these results suggest that number and area are independent representations, and that number encoding is not learned or exclusively derived from area encoding. Instead, it would appear that the encoding of number and surface area relies on unique visual routines in both identical and non-identical visual displays.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013

×
×

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.

×