Skip to main content
Log in

Size invariance in visual number discrimination

  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

This study deals with the observer's ability to discriminate the numerosity of two random dot-patterns irrespective of their relative size. One of these two patterns was a reference one that was always composed of 32 dots randomly distributed within aK ×K invisible square window (K = 1.92°). The second one was the test pattern with one of the five magnifications (K = 0.64°, 1.28°, 1.92°, 2.56°, 3.20°) and the relative number of dots varied on 11 levels (N = −15, −12, −9, −6, −3, 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, or 15 dots). The observer's task was to indicate which of the two patterns contained more dots. The results show that the stimulus size, as an irrelevant stimulus attribute, can be ignored in the judgements about relative numerosity. This means that the perceived numerosity is size invariant, at least for a 1.6-times magnification and a 3-times reduction of the test pattern. The size invariance observed constrains the range of potential models, since the perceived numerosity can be identified only by means of a feature of the stimulus that will remain invariant after any change in the absolute stimulus size.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allik, J., & Tuulmets, T. (1991 a). Occupancy model of perceived numerosity.Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 303–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allik, J., & Tuulmets, T. (1991 b). The perception of visual numerosity. In R. Watt (Ed.),Vision and visual dysfunctions (Vol. 14). Pattern recognition by man and machine. Macmillan: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, J., Campbell, F. W., & Francis, M. R. (1976). The magic number 4±0: A new look at visual numerosity judgements.Perception, 5, 327–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besner, D. (1978). Pattern recognition: Are size and orientation additive factors?Perception & Psychophysics, 23, 93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besner, D. (1983). Visual pattern recognition: Size preprocessing reexamined.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A, 209–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, W., Maier, R., & Helson, H. (1963). The influence of context upon the estimation of number.American Journal of Psychology, 76, 464–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binet, A. (1890). La perception des longueurs et des nombres chez quelques petits enfants.Revue philosophique de la France et de l'étranger, 30, 68–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesen, C., & Larsen, A. (1975). Visual transformation of size.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 214–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, P., & Sperling, G. (1981). Time, distance, and feature trade-offs in visual apparent motion.Psychological Review, 88, 171–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diggle, P. J. (1983).Statistical analysis of spatial patterns. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, P. (1978). Numerical comparison processes.Memory & Cognition, 6, 454–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, D. H. (1978). Visual comparison of random-dot patterns: Evidence concerning a fixed association between features and featurerelations.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,30, 637–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (1972). The solitaire illusion: An illusion of numerosity.Perception & Psychophysics, 11, 409–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, N. (1976). Effect of item arrangement on perceived numerosity: Randomness vs regularity.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 663–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, N. (1978). Perceived numerosity, item arrangement, and expectancy.American Journal of Psychology, 91, 267–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, N. (1980). The regular-random numerosity illusion: Rectangular patterns.Journal of General Psychology, 103, 211–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, N., & Goldstein, S. R. (1987). Measurement of visual cluster.American Journal of Psychology, 100, 193–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helson, H., & Kozaki, A. (1968). Anchor effects using numerical estimates of simple dot patterns.Perception & Psychophysics, 4, 163–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, E., & Jung, K. (1987). Judgement of numerosity: Effects of symmetry and goodness in dot pattern arrays.Acta Psychologica, 64, 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, S. E., & Cole, B. L. (1982). The effect of the density of background elements on the conspicuity of objects.Vision Research, 22, 1241–1252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jevons, W. S. (1871). The power of numerical discrimination.Nature, 3, 281–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julesz, B., & Schumer, R. A. (1981). Early visual perception.Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 575–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, L. E. (1972). Perceived numerosity.Perception & Psychophysics, 11, 5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, L. E. (1984). Perceived numerosity: A comparison of magnitude production, magnitude estimation, and discrimination judgments.Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 536–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, A. (1985). Pattern matching: Effect of size ratio, angular difference in orientation, and familiarity.Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 63–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, A., & Bundesen, C. (1978). Size scaling in visual pattern recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mart, D. (1982).Vision. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, C. V. (1974). Detection of difference between visual textures with varying number of dots.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 4, 201–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersik, J. T. (1989). The two-process distinction in apparent motion.Psychological Bulletin, 106, 107–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, I. (1972). Detection of changes in spatial position: 111. Dot number or dot density?Perception & Psychophysics, 12, 487–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponzo, M. (1928). Urteilstäuschungen über Mengen.Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 65, 129–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripley, B. D. (1981).Spatial statistics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santee, J. L., & Egeth, H. E. (1980). Selective attention in the speeded classification and comparison of multidimensional stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics, 28, 191–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sekuler, R., & Nash, D. (1972). Speed of size scaling in human vision.Bulletin of Psychonomic Society, 27, 93–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taves, E. H. (1941). Two mechanisms for the perception of visual numerousness.Archives of Psychology, 37, 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuulmets, T., & Allik, J. (1984). Spatiotemporal interpolation in the discrimination of visual number. In M. Rauk (Ed.),Computational models in hearing and vision (pp. 133–137). Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of the Estonian SSR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Oeffelen, M. P., & Vos, P. G. (1982). Probabilistic model for the discrimination of visual number.Perception & Psychophysics, 32, 163–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vos, P. G., Van Oeffelen, M. P., Tibosch, H. J., & Allik, J. (1988). Area-numerosity interactions.Psychological Research, 50, 148–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watt, R. J. (1987). Scanning from coarse to fine spatial scales in the human visual system after the onset of a stimulus.Journal of the Optical Society of America, 4A, 2006–2021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watt, R. J. (1988).Visual processing: Computational, psychophysical, and cognitive research. Hove, UK: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watt, R. J., & Morgan, M. J. (1985). A theory of primitive spatial code in human vision.Vision Research, 25, 1661–1674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth, R. S., & Schlosberg, H. (1954).Experimental psychology. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wundt, W. (1896).Grundriss der Psychologie. Leipzig: Engelmann.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allik, J., Tuulmets, T. & Vos, P.G. Size invariance in visual number discrimination. Psychol. Res 53, 290–295 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00920482

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00920482

Keywords

Navigation