Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision. Trick, L. & Pylyshyn, Z. W. Psychol Rev, 101(1):80-102, 1994. abstract bibtex "Subitizing," the process of enumeration when there are fewer than 4 items, is rapid (40-100 ms/item), effortless, and accurate. "Counting," the process of enumeration when there are more than 4 items, is slow (250-350 ms/item), effortful, and error-prone. Why is there a difference in the way the small and large numbers of items are enumerated? A theory of enumeration is proposed that emerges from a general theory of vision, yet explains the numeric abilities of preverbal infants, children, and adults. We argue that subitizing exploits a limited-capacity parallel mechanism for item individuation, the FINST mechanism, associated with the multiple target tracking task (Pylyshyn, 1989; Pylyshyn & Storm, 1988). Two kinds of evidence support the claim that subitizing relies on preattentive information, whereas counting requires spatial attention. First, whenever spatial attention is needed to compute a spatial relation (cf. Ullman, 1984) or to perform feature integration (cf. Treisman & Gelade, 1980), subitizing does not occur (Trick & Pylyshyn, 1993a). Second, the position of the attentional focus, as manipulated by cue validity, has a greater effect on counting than subitizing latencies (Trick & Pylyshyn, 1993b).
@Article{Trick1994,
author = {LM Trick and Zenon W. Pylyshyn},
journal = {Psychol Rev},
title = {Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? {A} limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision.},
year = {1994},
number = {1},
pages = {80-102},
volume = {101},
abstract = {"Subitizing," the process of enumeration when there are fewer than
4 items, is rapid (40-100 ms/item), effortless, and accurate. "Counting,"
the process of enumeration when there are more than 4 items, is slow
(250-350 ms/item), effortful, and error-prone. Why is there a difference
in the way the small and large numbers of items are enumerated? A
theory of enumeration is proposed that emerges from a general theory
of vision, yet explains the numeric abilities of preverbal infants,
children, and adults. We argue that subitizing exploits a limited-capacity
parallel mechanism for item individuation, the FINST mechanism, associated
with the multiple target tracking task (Pylyshyn, 1989; Pylyshyn
& Storm, 1988). Two kinds of evidence support the claim that subitizing
relies on preattentive information, whereas counting requires spatial
attention. First, whenever spatial attention is needed to compute
a spatial relation (cf. Ullman, 1984) or to perform feature integration
(cf. Treisman & Gelade, 1980), subitizing does not occur (Trick &
Pylyshyn, 1993a). Second, the position of the attentional focus,
as manipulated by cue validity, has a greater effect on counting
than subitizing latencies (Trick & Pylyshyn, 1993b).},
keywords = {Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Child, Preschool, Discrimination Learning, Human, Infant, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Problem Solving, Reaction Time, 8121961},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"d5H25tArjdTZXDH6N","bibbaseid":"trick-pylyshyn-whyaresmallandlargenumbersenumerateddifferentlyalimitedcapacitypreattentivestageinvision-1994","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2015-02-08T05:14:59.597Z","title":"Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision.","author_short":["Trick, L.","Pylyshyn, Z. W."],"year":1994,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://endress.org/publications/ansgar.bib","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","author":[{"firstnames":["LM"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Trick"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Zenon","W."],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Pylyshyn"],"suffixes":[]}],"journal":"Psychol Rev","title":"Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision.","year":"1994","number":"1","pages":"80-102","volume":"101","abstract":"\"Subitizing,\" the process of enumeration when there are fewer than 4 items, is rapid (40-100 ms/item), effortless, and accurate. \"Counting,\" the process of enumeration when there are more than 4 items, is slow (250-350 ms/item), effortful, and error-prone. Why is there a difference in the way the small and large numbers of items are enumerated? A theory of enumeration is proposed that emerges from a general theory of vision, yet explains the numeric abilities of preverbal infants, children, and adults. We argue that subitizing exploits a limited-capacity parallel mechanism for item individuation, the FINST mechanism, associated with the multiple target tracking task (Pylyshyn, 1989; Pylyshyn & Storm, 1988). Two kinds of evidence support the claim that subitizing relies on preattentive information, whereas counting requires spatial attention. First, whenever spatial attention is needed to compute a spatial relation (cf. Ullman, 1984) or to perform feature integration (cf. Treisman & Gelade, 1980), subitizing does not occur (Trick & Pylyshyn, 1993a). Second, the position of the attentional focus, as manipulated by cue validity, has a greater effect on counting than subitizing latencies (Trick & Pylyshyn, 1993b).","keywords":"Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Child, Preschool, Discrimination Learning, Human, Infant, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Problem Solving, Reaction Time, 8121961","bibtex":"@Article{Trick1994,\n author = {LM Trick and Zenon W. Pylyshyn},\n journal = {Psychol Rev},\n title = {Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? {A} limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision.},\n year = {1994},\n number = {1},\n pages = {80-102},\n volume = {101},\n abstract = {\"Subitizing,\" the process of enumeration when there are fewer than\n\t4 items, is rapid (40-100 ms/item), effortless, and accurate. \"Counting,\"\n\tthe process of enumeration when there are more than 4 items, is slow\n\t(250-350 ms/item), effortful, and error-prone. Why is there a difference\n\tin the way the small and large numbers of items are enumerated? A\n\ttheory of enumeration is proposed that emerges from a general theory\n\tof vision, yet explains the numeric abilities of preverbal infants,\n\tchildren, and adults. We argue that subitizing exploits a limited-capacity\n\tparallel mechanism for item individuation, the FINST mechanism, associated\n\twith the multiple target tracking task (Pylyshyn, 1989; Pylyshyn\n\t& Storm, 1988). Two kinds of evidence support the claim that subitizing\n\trelies on preattentive information, whereas counting requires spatial\n\tattention. First, whenever spatial attention is needed to compute\n\ta spatial relation (cf. Ullman, 1984) or to perform feature integration\n\t(cf. Treisman & Gelade, 1980), subitizing does not occur (Trick &\n\tPylyshyn, 1993a). Second, the position of the attentional focus,\n\tas manipulated by cue validity, has a greater effect on counting\n\tthan subitizing latencies (Trick & Pylyshyn, 1993b).},\n keywords = {Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Child, Preschool, Discrimination Learning, Human, Infant, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Problem Solving, Reaction Time, 8121961},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Trick, L.","Pylyshyn, Z. W."],"key":"Trick1994","id":"Trick1994","bibbaseid":"trick-pylyshyn-whyaresmallandlargenumbersenumerateddifferentlyalimitedcapacitypreattentivestageinvision-1994","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Adolescent","Adult","Attention","Child","Preschool","Discrimination Learning","Human","Infant","Orientation","Pattern Recognition","Visual","Problem Solving","Reaction Time","8121961"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0},"search_terms":["small","large","numbers","enumerated","differently","limited","capacity","preattentive","stage","vision","trick","pylyshyn"],"keywords":["adolescent","adult","attention","child","preschool","discrimination learning","human","infant","orientation","pattern recognition","visual","problem solving","reaction time","8121961"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["ErLXoH8mqSjESnrN5","xPGxHAeh3vZpx4yyE","TXa55dQbNoWnaGmMq"]}