Literature DB >> 25761336

Numerosity and density judgments: biases for area but not for volume.

Jason Bell1, Aaron Manson2, Mark Edwards2, Andrew Isaac Meso3.   

Abstract

Human observers can rapidly judge the number of items in a scene. This ability is underpinned by specific mechanisms encoding number or density. We investigated whether judgments of number and density are biased by a change in volume, as they are by a change in area. Stimuli were constructed using nonoverlapping black and white luminance-defined dots. An eight-mirror Wheatstone stereoscope was used to present the dots as though in a volume. Using a temporal two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) task and the Method of Constant Stimuli (MOCS), we measured the precision and bias (PSE shift) of numerosity and density judgments, separately, for stimuli differing in area or volume. For two-dimensional (2-D) stimuli, consistent with previous literature, perceived density was biased as area increased. However, perceived number was not. For three-dimensional (3-D) stimuli, despite a vivid impression of the dots filling a cylindrical volume, there was no bias in perceived density or number as volume increased. A control experiment showed that all of our observers could easily perceive disparity in our stimuli. Our findings reveal that number and density judgments that are biased by area are not similarly biased by volume changes.
© 2015 ARVO.

Entities:  

Keywords:  density; number; stereo; three-dimensional; two-dimensional

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25761336     DOI: 10.1167/15.2.18

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  5 in total

1.  Asymmetrical interference between number and item size perception provides evidence for a domain specific impairment in dyscalculia.

Authors:  Elisa Castaldi; Anne Mirassou; Stanislas Dehaene; Manuela Piazza; Evelyn Eger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-14       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Adaptation reveals multi-stage coding of visual duration.

Authors:  James Heron; Corinne Fulcher; Howard Collins; David Whitaker; Neil W Roach
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Number comparison under the Ebbinghaus illusion.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Chunhui Wang; Xiaoke Zhao; Shixin Deng; Yajun Zhao; Zhijun Zhang
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-09-20

4.  A shared numerical representation for action and perception.

Authors:  Giovanni Anobile; Roberto Arrighi; Irene Togoli; David Charles Burr
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 8.140

5.  Interaction of disparity size and depth structure on perceived numerosity in a three-dimensional space.

Authors:  Saori Aida; Yusuke Matsuda; Koichi Shimono
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.