Cargando…

Number comparison under the Ebbinghaus illusion

A series of studies show interest in how visual attributes affect the estimate of object numbers in a scene. In comparison tasks, it is suggested that larger patches are perceived as more numerous. However, the inequality of density, which changes inversely with the area when numerosity remains cons...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Wei, Wang, Chunhui, Zhao, Xiaoke, Deng, Shixin, Zhao, Yajun, Zhang, Zhijun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9530473/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36204750
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.989680
_version_ 1784801691367899136
author Liu, Wei
Wang, Chunhui
Zhao, Xiaoke
Deng, Shixin
Zhao, Yajun
Zhang, Zhijun
author_facet Liu, Wei
Wang, Chunhui
Zhao, Xiaoke
Deng, Shixin
Zhao, Yajun
Zhang, Zhijun
author_sort Liu, Wei
collection PubMed
description A series of studies show interest in how visual attributes affect the estimate of object numbers in a scene. In comparison tasks, it is suggested that larger patches are perceived as more numerous. However, the inequality of density, which changes inversely with the area when numerosity remains constant, may mediate the influence of area on numerosity perception. This study aims to explore the role of area and density in the judgment of numerosity. The Ebbinghaus illusion paradigm was adopted to induce differences in the perceived, rather than the physical, area of the two patches to be compared. Participants were asked to compare the area, density, and the number of the two patches in three tasks. To this end, no PSE (point of subjective equality) bias was found in number comparison with randomly distributed dots, although a significant difference was revealed in the perceived area of the two patches. No PSE bias was found in the density comparison, either. For a comparison, density and number tasks were also conducted with regularly distributed dots. No PSE bias was found in density comparison. By contrast, significant PSE bias showed up in number comparison, and larger patches appeared to be more numerous than smaller patches. The density mechanism was proposed as the basis for number comparison with regular patterns. The individual Weber fractions for regular patterns were not correlated with those for random patterns in the number task, but they were correlated with those for both patterns in the density task. To summarize, numerosity is directly sensed, and numerosity perception is not affected by area inequality induced by the Ebbinghaus illusion. In contrast, density and area are combined to infer numerosity when the approximate numerosity mechanism is disrupted by dot distribution.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9530473
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95304732022-10-05 Number comparison under the Ebbinghaus illusion Liu, Wei Wang, Chunhui Zhao, Xiaoke Deng, Shixin Zhao, Yajun Zhang, Zhijun Front Psychol Psychology A series of studies show interest in how visual attributes affect the estimate of object numbers in a scene. In comparison tasks, it is suggested that larger patches are perceived as more numerous. However, the inequality of density, which changes inversely with the area when numerosity remains constant, may mediate the influence of area on numerosity perception. This study aims to explore the role of area and density in the judgment of numerosity. The Ebbinghaus illusion paradigm was adopted to induce differences in the perceived, rather than the physical, area of the two patches to be compared. Participants were asked to compare the area, density, and the number of the two patches in three tasks. To this end, no PSE (point of subjective equality) bias was found in number comparison with randomly distributed dots, although a significant difference was revealed in the perceived area of the two patches. No PSE bias was found in the density comparison, either. For a comparison, density and number tasks were also conducted with regularly distributed dots. No PSE bias was found in density comparison. By contrast, significant PSE bias showed up in number comparison, and larger patches appeared to be more numerous than smaller patches. The density mechanism was proposed as the basis for number comparison with regular patterns. The individual Weber fractions for regular patterns were not correlated with those for random patterns in the number task, but they were correlated with those for both patterns in the density task. To summarize, numerosity is directly sensed, and numerosity perception is not affected by area inequality induced by the Ebbinghaus illusion. In contrast, density and area are combined to infer numerosity when the approximate numerosity mechanism is disrupted by dot distribution. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9530473/ /pubmed/36204750 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.989680 Text en Copyright © 2022 Liu, Wang, Zhao, Deng, Zhao and Zhang. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Liu, Wei
Wang, Chunhui
Zhao, Xiaoke
Deng, Shixin
Zhao, Yajun
Zhang, Zhijun
Number comparison under the Ebbinghaus illusion
title Number comparison under the Ebbinghaus illusion
title_full Number comparison under the Ebbinghaus illusion
title_fullStr Number comparison under the Ebbinghaus illusion
title_full_unstemmed Number comparison under the Ebbinghaus illusion
title_short Number comparison under the Ebbinghaus illusion
title_sort number comparison under the ebbinghaus illusion
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9530473/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36204750
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.989680
work_keys_str_mv AT liuwei numbercomparisonundertheebbinghausillusion
AT wangchunhui numbercomparisonundertheebbinghausillusion
AT zhaoxiaoke numbercomparisonundertheebbinghausillusion
AT dengshixin numbercomparisonundertheebbinghausillusion
AT zhaoyajun numbercomparisonundertheebbinghausillusion
AT zhangzhijun numbercomparisonundertheebbinghausillusion