Cargando…
Do estimates of numerosity really adhere to Weber’s law? A reexamination of two case studies
Both humans and nonhuman animals can exhibit sensitivity to the approximate number of items in a visual array or events in a sequence, and across various paradigms, uncertainty in numerosity judgments increases with the number estimated or produced. The pattern of increase is usually described as ex...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7870758/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32949010 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01801-z |
_version_ | 1783648869854216192 |
---|---|
author | Testolin, Alberto McClelland, James L. |
author_facet | Testolin, Alberto McClelland, James L. |
author_sort | Testolin, Alberto |
collection | PubMed |
description | Both humans and nonhuman animals can exhibit sensitivity to the approximate number of items in a visual array or events in a sequence, and across various paradigms, uncertainty in numerosity judgments increases with the number estimated or produced. The pattern of increase is usually described as exhibiting approximate adherence to Weber’s law, such that uncertainty increases proportionally to the mean estimate, resulting in a constant coefficient of variation. Such a pattern has been proposed to be a signature characteristic of an innate “number sense.” We reexamine published behavioral data from two studies that have been cited as prototypical evidence of adherence to Weber’s law and observe that in both cases variability increases less than this account would predict, as indicated by a decreasing coefficient of variation with an increase in number. We also consider evidence from numerosity discrimination studies that show deviations from the constant coefficient of variation pattern. Though behavioral data can sometimes exhibit approximate adherence to Weber’s law, our findings suggest that such adherence is not a fixed characteristic of the mechanisms whereby humans and animals estimate numerosity. We suggest instead that the observed pattern of increase in variability with number depends on the circumstances of the task and stimuli, and reflects an adaptive ensemble of mechanisms composed to optimize performance under these circumstances. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7870758 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78707582021-02-16 Do estimates of numerosity really adhere to Weber’s law? A reexamination of two case studies Testolin, Alberto McClelland, James L. Psychon Bull Rev Brief Report Both humans and nonhuman animals can exhibit sensitivity to the approximate number of items in a visual array or events in a sequence, and across various paradigms, uncertainty in numerosity judgments increases with the number estimated or produced. The pattern of increase is usually described as exhibiting approximate adherence to Weber’s law, such that uncertainty increases proportionally to the mean estimate, resulting in a constant coefficient of variation. Such a pattern has been proposed to be a signature characteristic of an innate “number sense.” We reexamine published behavioral data from two studies that have been cited as prototypical evidence of adherence to Weber’s law and observe that in both cases variability increases less than this account would predict, as indicated by a decreasing coefficient of variation with an increase in number. We also consider evidence from numerosity discrimination studies that show deviations from the constant coefficient of variation pattern. Though behavioral data can sometimes exhibit approximate adherence to Weber’s law, our findings suggest that such adherence is not a fixed characteristic of the mechanisms whereby humans and animals estimate numerosity. We suggest instead that the observed pattern of increase in variability with number depends on the circumstances of the task and stimuli, and reflects an adaptive ensemble of mechanisms composed to optimize performance under these circumstances. Springer US 2020-09-18 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7870758/ /pubmed/32949010 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01801-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Brief Report Testolin, Alberto McClelland, James L. Do estimates of numerosity really adhere to Weber’s law? A reexamination of two case studies |
title | Do estimates of numerosity really adhere to Weber’s law? A reexamination of two case studies |
title_full | Do estimates of numerosity really adhere to Weber’s law? A reexamination of two case studies |
title_fullStr | Do estimates of numerosity really adhere to Weber’s law? A reexamination of two case studies |
title_full_unstemmed | Do estimates of numerosity really adhere to Weber’s law? A reexamination of two case studies |
title_short | Do estimates of numerosity really adhere to Weber’s law? A reexamination of two case studies |
title_sort | do estimates of numerosity really adhere to weber’s law? a reexamination of two case studies |
topic | Brief Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7870758/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32949010 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01801-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT testolinalberto doestimatesofnumerosityreallyadheretoweberslawareexaminationoftwocasestudies AT mcclellandjamesl doestimatesofnumerosityreallyadheretoweberslawareexaminationoftwocasestudies |