Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

How do we determine how much of something is present? A large body of research has investigated the mechanisms and consequences of number estimation, yet surprisingly little work has investigated area estimation. Indeed, area is often treated as a pesky confound in the study of number. Here, we describe the additive-area heuristic, a means of rapidly estimating visual area that results in substantial distortions of perceived area in many contexts, visible even in simple demonstrations. We show that when we controlled for additive area, observers were unable to discriminate on the basis of true area, per se, and that these results could not be explained by other spatial dimensions. These findings reflect a powerful perceptual illusion in their own right but also have implications for other work, namely, that which relies on area controls to support claims about number estimation. We discuss several areas of research potentially affected by these findings.

Keywords

visual perception numerical cognition size discrimination open data open materials preregistered

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

N. H.

Cuneo

D. O.

(1978). The height + width rule in children’s judgments of quantity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107, 335–378.

Anobile

Cicchini

G. M.

Burr

D. C.

(2014). Separate mechanisms for perception of numerosity and density. Psychological Science, 25, 265–270.

Anobile

Cicchini

G. M.

Burr

D. C.

(2016). Number as a primary perceptual attribute: A review. Perception, 45, 5–31.

Barth

Kanwisher

Spelke

E. S.

(2003). The construction of large number representations in adults. Cognition, 86, 201–221.

Barth

H. C.

(2008). Judgments of discrete and continuous quantity: An illusory Stroop effect. Cognition, 109, 251–266.

Brannon

E. M.

Abbott

Lutz

D. J.

(2004). Number bias for the discrimination of large visual sets in infancy. Cognition, 93, 59–68.

Brannon

E. M.

Lutz

Cordes

(2006). The development of area discrimination and its implications for number representation in infancy. Developmental Science, 9, 59–64.

Brannon

E. M.

Terrace

H. S.

(1998). Ordering of the numerosities 1–9 by monkeys. Science, 282, 746–749.

Carbon

C.-C.

(2016). The folded paper size illusion: Evidence of inability to perceptually integrate more than one geometrical dimension. i-Perception, 7(4). doi:10.1177/2041669516658048

10.

Coren

Girgus

J. S.

(1978). Seeing is deceiving: The psychology of visual illusions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

11.

DeWind

N. K.

Adams

G. K.

Platt

M. L.

Brannon

E. M.

(2015). Modeling the approximate number system to quantify the contribution of visual stimulus features. Cognition, 142, 247–265.

12.

Durgin

F. H.

(1995). Texture density adaptation and the perceived numerosity and distribution of texture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 149–169.

13.

Ekman

Junge

(1961). Psychophysical relations in visual perception of length, area and volume. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2, 1–10.

14.

Gigerenzer

Richter

H. R.

(1990). Context effects and their interaction with development: Area judgments. Cognitive Development, 5, 235–264.

15.

Gordon

(2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306, 496–499.

16.

Halberda

Mazzocco

M. M.

Feigenson

(2008). Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature, 455, 665–668.

17.

Hurewitz

Gelman

Schnitzer

(2006). Sometimes area counts more than number. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 103, 19599–19604.

18.

Krider

R. E.

Raghubir

Krishna

(2001). Pizzas: π or square? Psychophysical biases in area comparisons. Marketing Science, 20, 405–425.

19.

Lourenco

S. F.

Bonny

J. W.

(2017). Representations of numerical and non-numerical magnitude both contribute to mathematical competence in children. Developmental Science, 20, 12418–12420.

20.

Lourenco

S. F.

Bonny

J. W.

Fernandez

E. P.

Rao

(2012). Nonsymbolic number and cumulative area representations contribute shared and unique variance to symbolic math competence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 109, 18737–18742.

21.

Lourenco

S. F.

Longo

M. R.

(2010). General magnitude representation in human infants. Psychological Science, 21, 873–881.

22.

Mandelbrot

. (1967). How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-similarity and fractional dimension. Science, 156, 636–638.

23.

Marchant

A. P.

Simons

D. J.

de Fockert

J. W.

(2013). Ensemble representations: Effects of set size and item heterogeneity on average size perception. Acta Psychologica, 142, 245–250.

24.

McCrink

Wynn

. (2007). Ratio abstraction by 6-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 18, 740–745.

25.

Mix

K. S.

Huttenlocher

Levine

S. C.

(2002). Multiple cues for quantification in infancy: Is number one of them? Psychological Bulletin, 128, 278–294.

26.

Nachmias

(2008). Judging spatial properties of simple figures. Vision Research, 48, 1290–1296.

27.

Nachmias

(2011). Shape and size discrimination compared. Vision Research, 51, 400–407.

28.

Nieder

Miller

E. K.

(2004). A parieto-frontal network for visual numerical information in the monkey. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 101, 7457–7462.

29.

Odic

Libertus

M. E.

Feigenson

Halberda

(2013). Developmental change in the acuity of approximate number and area representations. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1103–1112.

30.

Peirce

J. W.

(2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, 8–13.

31.

Pica

Lemer

Izard

Dehaene

(2004). Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group. Science, 306, 499–503.

32.

Rousselle

Palmers

Noël

M. P.

(2004). Magnitude comparison in preschoolers: What counts? Influence of perceptual variables. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 57–84.

33.

Sokolowski

H. M.

Fias

Ononye

C. B.

Ansari

(2017). Are numbers grounded in a general magnitude processing system? A functional neuroimaging meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia, 105, 50–69.

34.

Solomon

J. A.

Morgan

Chubb

(2011). Efficiencies for the statistics of size discrimination. Journal of Vision, 11(12), Article 13. doi:10.1167/11.12.13

35.

Teghtsoonian

(1965). The judgment of size. The American Journal of Psychology, 78, 392–402.

36.

Walsh

(2003). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 483–488.

37.

Spelke

E. S.

(2000). Large number discrimination in 6-month-old infants. Cognition, 74, B1–B11.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.58 MB

The Additive-Area Heuristic: An Efficient but Illusory Means of Visual Area Approximation

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material