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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Testolin, Alberto, McClelland, James L.
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