Much previous research has examined various aspects of auditory processing, including the localization of sounds, and the influence of lexical and indexical information on language processing. In the present set of experiments we explored the ability of listeners to estimate the number of speakers in a group solely from the information in an auditory signal. The bound on accurately estimating the number of simultaneous speakers is 3. We suggest that subitization—the ability to estimate numerosity of visual and auditory elements without explicitly counting these elements—rather than the capacity of short-term memory, may underlie this limitation. The cognitive constraint on estimating the number of simultaneous speakers may have implications for a wide variety of seemingly unrelated psychological phenomena.
AbercrombieD. (1967). Elements of general phonetics. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
2.
AgrilloC., PifferL., BisazzaA., & ButterworthB. (2012). Evidence for two numerical systems that are similar in humans and guppies. PloS one, 7(2), e31923. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031923
3.
BelinP., FecteauS., & BedardC. (2004). Thinking the voice: Neural correlates of voice perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 129–135.
4.
BeranM. J., DeckerS., SchwartzA., & SchultzN. (2011). Monkeys (Macaca mulatta and Cebus apella) and human adults and children (Homo sapiens) compare subsets of moving stimuli based on numerosity. Frontiers in Psychology, 2. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00061
5.
BondR. (2005). Group size and conformity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 331–354.
6.
BrancazioL., & MillerJ. L. (2005). Use of visual information in speech perception: Evidence for a visual rate effect both with and without a McGurk effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 759–769.
7.
ChinS. B., & PisoniD. B. (1997). Alcohol and speech. San Diego, CA: Brill Academic Publishers.
8.
CliffordB. R. (1980). Voice identification by human listeners: On earwitness reliability. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 373–394.
9.
CliffordB. R., & BullR. (1978). The psychology of person identification. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
10.
ClopperC. G., & BradlowA. R. (2009). Free classification of American English dialects by native and non-native listeners. Journal of Phonetics, 37, 436–451.
11.
CohenJ., MacWhinneyB., FlattM., & ProvostJ. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, 25, 257–271.
12.
CookS., & WildingJ. (1997). Earwitness testimony: Never mind the variety, hear the length. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 95–111.
13.
CorbettG. (2000). Number. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
CowanN. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–114.
15.
DackeM., & SrinivasanM. V. (2008). Evidence for counting in insects. Animal Cognition, 11, 683–689.
16.
DehaeneS. (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition, 44, 1–42.
17.
DunbarR. I. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8, 100–110.
18.
EllisD. S. (1967). Speech and social status in America. Social Forces, 45, 431–437.
19.
FaulF., ErdfelderE., LangA. G., & BuchnerA. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
20.
GallistelC. R., & GelmanR. (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and computation. Cognition, 44, 43–74.
21.
GallivanJ. P., ChapmanC. S., WoodD. K., MilneJ. L., AnsariD., CulhamJ. C., & GoodaleM. A. (2011). One to four, and nothing more nonconscious parallel individuation of objects during action planning. Psychological Science, 22, 803–811.
22.
GallupA. C., HaleJ. J., SumpterD. J. T., GarnierS., KacelnikA., KrebsJ. R., & CouzinI. D. (2012). Visual attention and the acquisition of information in human crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 109, 7245–7250.
23.
GamperH., DickeC., BillinghurstM., & PuolamäkiK. (2013). Sound sample detection and numerosity estimation using auditory display. Association for Computing Machinery Transactions on Applied Perception, 10(1), 1–18.
24.
GaverW. W. (1993). What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology, 5, 1–29.
25.
GillM. M. (1994). Accent and stereotypes: Their effect on perceptions of teachers and lecture comprehension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 348–361.
26.
GradolD., & SwannJ. (1983). Speaking fundamental frequency: Some physical and social correlates. Language and Speech, 26, 351–366.
27.
GrassiM., PastoreM., & LemaitreG. (2013). Looking at the world with your ears: How do we get the size of an object from its sound? Acta Psychologica, 143, 96–104.
28.
GreenE. J., & BarberP. J. (1981). An auditory Stroop effect with judgments of speaker gender. Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 459–466.
29.
HarringtonF. H. (1989). Chorus howling by wolves: acoustic structure, pack size and the Beau Geste effect. Bioacoustics, 2, 117–136.
30.
HoustonD. M., & JusczykP. W. (2000). The role of talker-specific information in word segmentation by infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1570–1582.
31.
KaasJ. H. & HackettT. A. (2000). Subdivisions of auditory cortex and processing streams in primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science97, 11793–11799.
32.
KaufmanE. L., LordM. W., ReeseT. W., & VolkmannJ. (1949). The discrimination of visual number. The American Journal of Psychology, 62, 498–525.
33.
KottiM., MoschouV. & KotropoulosC. (2008). Review: Speaker segmentation and clustering. Signal Processing, 88, 1091–1124.
34.
KraussR. M., FreybergR., & MorsellaE. (2002). Inferring speakers’ physical attributes from their voices. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 618–625.
35.
KrebsJ. R. (1977). The significance of song repertoires: The Beau Geste hypothesis. Animal Behaviour, 25, 475–478.
36.
LeekM. R., BrownM. E., & DormanM. F. (1991). Informational masking and auditory attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 205–214.
37.
MandlerG., & SheboB. J. (1982). Subitizing: An analysis of its component processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(1), 1–22.
38.
McLachlanN. M., MarcoD. J. T., & WilsonS. J. (2012). Pitch enumeration: Failure to subitize in audition. PloS one, 7(4), e33661. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033661
39.
MilgramS., BickmanL., & BerkowitzL. (1969). Note on the drawing power of crowds of different size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 79–82.
40.
MillerG. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
41.
MorrongielloB. A., & GotowiecA. (1990). Recent advances in the behavioral study of infant audition: The development of sound localization skills. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 14, 51–63.
42.
MunsonB. (2007). The acoustic correlates of perceived masculinity, perceived femininity, and perceived sexual orientation. Language and Speech, 50, 125–142.
43.
MyersT. D., & BalmerN. J. (2012). The impact of crowd noise on officiating in Muay Thai: Achieving external validity in an experimental setting. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 346. doi:/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00346
44.
NiederA., & DehaeneS. (2009). Representation of number in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 32, 185–208.
PereaM., & RosaE. (2002). Does ‘whole-word shape’ play a role in visual word recognition? Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 785–794.
47.
ReppB. H. (2007). Perceiving the numerosity of rapidly occurring auditory events in metrical and nonmetrical contexts. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 69, 529–543.
SchweickertR. (1993). A multinomial processing tree model for degradation and redintegration in immediate recall. Memory & Cognition, 21, 168–175.
50.
ThurlowW. R., & RawlingsI. L. (1959). Discrimination of number of simultaneously sounding tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 31, 1332–1336.
51.
UnkelbachC., & MemmertD. (2010). Crowd noise as a cue in referee decisions contributes to the home advantage. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 483–498.
52.
VasilenkoY. A., & ShestopalovaL. B. (2010). Moving sound source discrimination in humans: Mismatch negativity and psychophysics. Human Physiology, 36, 139–146.
53.
Velasco GarcíaM. J., CobetaI., MartínG., Alonso-NavarroH., & Jimenez-JimenezF. J. (2011). Acoustic analysis of voice in Huntington's disease patients. Journal of Voice, 25, 208–217.
54.
VitevitchM. S. (2002). Naturalistic and experimental analyses of word frequency and neighborhood density effects in slips of the ear. Language and Speech, 45, 407–434.
55.
VitevitchM. S., SerenoJ., JongmanA., & GoldsteinR. (2013). Speaker sex influences processing of grammatical gender. Plos One, 8(11): e79701. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079701
56.
WilliamsC. E. & StevensK. N. (1972). Emotions and speech: Some acoustical correlates. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 52, 233–248.
57.
YarmeyA. D., YarmeyA. L., YarmeyM. J., & ParliamentL. (2001). Commonsense beliefs and the identification of familiar voices. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 283–299.
58.
YasukawaK., & SearcyW. A. (1985). Song repertoires and density assessment in red-winged blackbirds: Further tests of the Beau Geste hypothesis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 16, 171–175.
