Subitizing and similarity: Toward a pattern-matching theory of enumeration

Pattern-matching theories of subitizing claim that subjects enumerate displays with small numerosities by retrieving numerical responses associated with similar displays experienced in the past. Such retrieval implies that displays with small numerosities are similar to other displays of the same numerosity and dissimilar to other displays of different numerosities. These hypotheses were tested by having subjects rate the similarities of displays of dot patterns with numerosities in the range of 1–10. One group of subjects rated patterns of the same numerosity. Their ratings were higher for patterns in the subitizing range (numerosities of 1–3) than for patterns beyond the subitizing range (numerosities of 4–10). Another group rated patterns of different numerosities. Their ratings were lower in the subitizing range than beyond the subitizing range. An analysis based on multidimensional scaling suggested that numerosity could be retrieved accurately for displays of 1–3 dots, but not for displays of 4–10 dots.

[1]  P. Starkey,et al.  Perception of numbers by human infants. , 1980, Science.

[2]  G. Baylis,et al.  Individual differences in working memory capacity and enumeration , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[3]  J. Enns,et al.  Life Span Changes in Visual Enumeration: The Number Discrimination Task , 1996 .

[4]  R. Church,et al.  A mode control model of counting and timing processes. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[5]  Rochel Gelman,et al.  Subitizing: The preverbal counting process. , 1991 .

[6]  David Klahr,et al.  A PRODUCTION SYSTEM FOR COUNTING, SUBITIZING AND ADDING , 1973 .

[7]  H. Davis,et al.  Numerical competence in animals: Definitional issues, current evidence, and a new research agenda , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[8]  R M Nosofsky,et al.  Similarity-scaling studies of dot-pattern classification and recognition. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[9]  G. Logan,et al.  Memory-based automaticity in the discrimination of visual numerosity. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  P. G. Vos,et al.  A probabilistic model for the discrimination of visual number , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  G. Wolters,et al.  Quantification of Small Numbers of Dots: Subitizing or Pattern Recognition? , 1987 .

[12]  M. Sliwinski,et al.  Aging and counting speed: evidence for process-specific slowing. , 1997, Psychology and aging.

[13]  J. B.,et al.  The Power of Numerical Discrimination , 1871, Nature.

[14]  H Egeth,et al.  Subitizing: Direct apprehension or serial processing? , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. , 1997, Psychological review.

[16]  T J Simon,et al.  Subitizing and counting depend on different attentional mechanisms: Evidence from visual enumeration in afterimages , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[17]  R. Nosofsky.  Exemplar-Based Accounts of Relations Between Classification, Recognition, and Typicality , 1988 .

[18]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Reaction time as a measure of span of attention. , 1948, The Journal of psychology.

[19]  M. F. Washburn,et al.  Grundriss der Psychologie , 1894, Nature.

[20]  E. M. Jensen,et al.  The subitizing and counting of visually presented fields of dots. , 1950 .

[21]  Tony J. Simon,et al.  Computational evidence for the subitizing phenomenon as an emergent property of the human cognitive architecture , 2000, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  Gordon D Logan,et al.  An instance theory of attention and memory. , 2002, Psychological review.

[23]  E. L. Kaufman,et al.  The discrimination of visual number. , 1949, The American journal of psychology.

[24]  Z. Pylyshyn,et al.  Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision. , 1994, Psychological review.

[25]  Howard C. Warren,et al.  The reaction time of counting. , 1897 .

[26]  G. Mandler,et al.  Subitizing: an analysis of its component processes. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[27]  R. Nosofsky.  American Psychological Association, Inc. Choice, Similarity, and the Context Theory of Classification , 2022 .

[28]  F Boselie,et al.  Against the likelihood principle in visual form perception. , 1988, Psychological review.

[29]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  Development of Elementary Numerical Abilities: A Neuronal Model , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[30]  J. D. Balakrishnan,et al.  Is subitizing a unique numerical ability? , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  F. Gregory Ashby,et al.  Subitizing: Magical numbers or mere superstition? , 1992, Psychological research.

[32]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Dissociable mechanisms of subitizing and counting: neuropsychological evidence from simultanagnosic patients. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  R. Nosofsky.  Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. , 1984 .

[34]  R Rothkegel,et al.  Subitizing and its subprocesses , 2000, Psychological research.

[35]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Neural Evidence Linking Visual Object Enumeration and Attention , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[36]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Rules of the Mind , 1993 .

[37]  T. Palmeri.  Exemplar similarity and the development of automaticity. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[38]  G. Logan.  Toward an instance theory of automatization. , 1988 .