Absence of low-level visual difference between canonical and noncanonical finger-numeral configurations.

Canonical finger numeral configurations are named faster than less familiar finger configurations and activate a semantic place-coding representation as symbolic stimuli. However, this does not exclude categorically the possibility that mere visuo-perceptual differences between canonical and noncanonical finger configurations may induce differences in processing speed. This study capitalizes on the fact that, in typical visual-detection tasks, participants focus on low-level visuo-perceptual features to detect a target among distractors sharing the same high-level semantic features, producing the so-called pop-out effect. Participants had to decide whether a canonical finger configuration was present among a set of distractors expressing the same numerosity in a noncanonical way. The results showed that the time needed to detect the presence of the target grew linearly with the number of distractors. This indicates that the canonical target enjoyed no perceptual saliency among the noncanonical configurations (i.e., no pop-out effect) excluding visuo-perceptual differences as the source of the better identification of and semantic access of canonical configurations.

[1]  J. Wolfe,et al.  The role of categorization in visual search for orientation. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. , 1996, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[3]  Shaul Hochstein,et al.  At first sight: A high-level pop out effect for faces , 2005, Vision Research.

[4]  L Proteau,et al.  A Sensorimotor Basis for Motor Learning: Evidence Indicating Specificity of Practice , 1992, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[5]  Alexandre Pouget,et al.  Paying Attention to Neurons with Discriminating Taste , 2007, Neuron.

[6]  Guillaume A. Rousselet,et al.  Parallel processing in high-level categorization of natural images , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[7]  Brian Butterworth,et al.  The Mathematical Brain , 1999 .

[8]  Michael Andres,et al.  Finger counting: The missing tool? , 2008, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[9]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Understanding motor events: a neurophysiological study , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[10]  Pierre Barrouillet,et al.  Predicting arithmetical achievement from neuro-psychological performance: a longitudinal study , 1998, Cognition.

[11]  A. Treisman,et al.  Search asymmetry: a diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[12]  Mauro Pesenti,et al.  Masked priming effect with canonical finger numeral configurations , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[13]  Caroline Catmur,et al.  Sensorimotor Learning Configures the Human Mirror System , 2007, Current Biology.

[14]  M. Noël,et al.  Finger gnosia: a predictor of numerical abilities in children? , 2005, Child neuropsychology : a journal on normal and abnormal development in childhood and adolescence.

[15]  Michael Andres,et al.  Number magnitude potentiates action judgements , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[16]  R. VanRullen On second glance: Still no high-level pop-out effect for faces , 2006, Vision Research.

[17]  Xavier Seron,et al.  Finger–digit compatibility in Arabic numeral processing , 2006, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  Anna M. Borghi,et al.  Hand–object interaction in perspective , 2008, Neuroscience Letters.

[19]  Anne Treisman,et al.  Features and objects in visual processing , 1986 .

[20]  S. Hochstein,et al.  With a careful look: Still no low-level confound to face pop-out , 2006, Vision Research.

[21]  Wim Fias,et al.  Priming reveals differential coding of symbolic and non-symbolic quantities , 2007, Cognition.

[22]  S. Hochstein,et al.  Task difficulty and the specificity of perceptual learning , 1997, Nature.

[23]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Why are there eccentricity effects in visual search? Visual and attentional hypotheses , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  Anne Treisman,et al.  Preattentive processing in vision , 1985, Computer Vision Graphics and Image Processing.

[25]  S. Hochstein,et al.  The reverse hierarchy theory of visual perceptual learning , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[27]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  The mirror-neuron system. , 2004, Annual review of neuroscience.

[28]  S. Vogt,et al.  Visuomotor priming by pictures of hand postures: perspective matters , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[29]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Action recognition in the premotor cortex. , 1996, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[30]  Jordan Grafman,et al.  Handbook of Neuropsychology , 1991 .

[31]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.