Previous research on numerosity judgments addressed attended items, while the present research addresses underestimation for unattended items in visual search tasks. One potential cause of underestimation for unattended items is that estimates of quantity may depend on viewing a large portion of the display within foveal vision. Another theory follows from the occupancy model: estimating quantity of items in greater proximity to one another increases the likelihood of an underestimation error. Three experimental manipulations addressed aspects of underestimation for unattended items: the size of the distracters, the distance of the target from fixation, and whether items were clustered together. Results suggested that the underestimation effect for unattended items was best explained within a Gestalt grouping framework.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AksD. J. (1998) Influence of exercise on visual search: Implications for mediating cognitive mechanisms. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 771–783.
2.
AllikJ.TuulmetsT. (1991) Occupancy model of perceived numerosity. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 303–314.
3.
AtkinsonJ.CampbellF. W.FrancisM. R. (1976) The magic number 4 ± 0: A new look at visual numerosity judgments. Perception, 5, 327–334.
4.
BaconW. F.EgethH. E. (1991) Local processes in preattentive feature detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 77–90.
5.
CarrascoM.EvertD. L.ChangI.KatzS. M. (1995) The eccentricity effect: Target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1241–1261.
6.
CarrascoM.FriederK. S. (1997) Cortical magnification neutralizes the eccentricity effect in visual search. Vision Research, 37, 63–82.
7.
CassentiD. N.KelleyT. D.GhirardelliT. G. (2006) Awareness yet underestimation of distractors in feature searches. In SunR. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 1086–1091.
8.
DuncanJ.HumphreysG. W. (1989) Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433–458.
FindlayJ. M. (1997) Saccade target selection during visual search. Vision Research, 37, 617–631.
11.
GandiniD.LemaireP.DufauS. (2008) Older and younger adults' strategies in approximate quantification. Acta Psychologica, 129, 175–189.
12.
GinsburgN. (1976) Effect of item arrangement on perceived numerosity: Randomness vs regularity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 663–668.
13.
GinsburgN. (1988) Perceived numerosity as a function of item size. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 656–658.
14.
GinsburgN. (1991) Numerosity estimation as a function of stimulus organization. Perception, 20, 681–686.
15.
HermensF.ScharnowskiF.HerzogM. H. (2009) Spatial grouping determines temporal integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Performance and Perception, 35, 595–610.
16.
HuangK. C.ChiuT. L. (2007) Visual search performance on an LCD monitor: Effects of color combination of figure and icon background, shape width, and line width of icon border. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104, 562–574.
17.
HumphreysG. W.QuinlanP. T.RiddochM. J. (1989) Grouping processes in visual search: Effects with single- and combined-feature targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 258–279.
18.
JevonsW. S. (1871) The power of numerical discrimination. Nature, 3, 363–372.
19.
KöhlerW. (1970) Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.
20.
KruegerL. E. (1982) Single judgments of numerosity. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 175–182.
21.
LuwelK.VerschaffelL.OnghenaP.De CorteE. (2003) Strategic aspects of numerosity judgment: The effect of task characteristics. Experimental Psychology, 50, 63–75.
22.
MooreC. M.GrosjeanM.LlerasA. (2003) Using inattentional blindness as an operational definition of unattended: The case of surface completion. Visual Cognition, 10, 299–318.
23.
PelliD. G.MajajN. J.RaizmanN.ChristianC. J.KimE.PalomaresM. C. (2009) Grouping in object recognition: The role of a Gestalt law in letter identification. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26, 36–49.
24.
TavesE. H. (1941) Two mechanisms for the perception of visual numerousness. Archives of Psychology, 37, 1–47.
25.
TreismanA.GeladeG. (1980) A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
26.
TreismanA.GormicanS. (1988) Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95, 15–48.
WertheimerM. (1938) Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In EllisW. D. (Ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace. Pp. 71–88.
29.
WolfeJ. M.O'NeillP.BennettS. C. (1998) Why are there eccentricity effects in visual search? Visual and attentional hypotheses. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 140–156.
30.
WoodmanM. F.KangM-S.ThompsonK.SchallJ. D. (2008) The effect of visual search efficiency on response preparation: Neurophysiological evidence for discrete flow. Psychological Science, 19, 128–136.
