Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 163–170

A probabilistic model for the discrimination of visual number

  • Michiel P. van Oeffelen
  • Peter G. Vos


This paper proposes a probabilistic model of how humans identify the number of dots within a briefly presented visual display. The model is an application of Thurstone’s law of comparative judgment, and it is assumed that the internal representation of numerosity consists of log-spaced random variables. The discrimination between any two different numerosities is consequently described as a function of max/rain, where max and rain are the larger and smaller numbers, respectively. The model was tested in two experiments in which the Weber fraction for numerosity, corresponding with the critical ratio of max and min, was found to have the value of 162. It was concluded that the classical span of subitizing numerosity is but a special case of the span of discrimination.


  1. Averbach, E. The span of apprehension as a function of exposure duration.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1963,2, 60–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckwith, M., &Restle, F. Process of enumeration.Psychological Review, 1966,73, 437–444.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourdon, B. Sur le temps nécessaire pour nominer les nornbres.Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Etranger, 1908,33, 426–431.Google Scholar
  4. Crossman, E. R. F. W. The measurement of discriminability.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956,7, 176–195.Google Scholar
  5. Fernberger, S. W. A preliminary study of the range of visual apprehension.American Journal of Psychology, 1921,32, 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freeman, F. N. Grouped objects as concrete basis for the number idea.Elementary School Teacher, 1912,12, 306–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hunter, W. S., Sigler, M. The span of visual discrimination as a function of time and intensity of stimulation.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1940,26, 160–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Indow, T., Ida, M. Scaling of dot numerosity.Perception & Psychophysics, 1977,22, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaufman, E. L., Lord, M. W., Reese, T. W., &Volkman, J. The discrimination of visual number.American Journal of Psychology, 1949,62, 498–525.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Moyer, R. S., &Landauer, T. K. The time required for judgments of numerical inequality.Nature, 1967,215, 1519–1520.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Neisser, U.Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.Google Scholar
  12. Parducci, A. Range-frequency compromise in judgment.Psychological Monographs, 1963,77 (2, Whole No. 565).Google Scholar
  13. Taves, E. H. Two mechanisms for the perception of visual numerousness.Archives of Psychology, 1941, No. 265.Google Scholar
  14. Thurstone, L. L. A law of comparative judgment.Psychological Review, 1927,34, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Thurstone, L. L. Fechner’s law and the method of equalappearing intervals.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1929,12, 214–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Torgerson, W. S.Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
  17. Woodworth, R. S., &Schlosberg, H.Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1954.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michiel P. van Oeffelen
    • 1
  • Peter G. Vos
    • 1
  1. 1.University of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Psychology DepartmentKUNNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations