The magic number four and temporo-parietal damage: Neurological impairments in counting targets amongst distractors.

Three experiments assessed visual search and target enumeration performance in a patient (DW) with damage to the right temporo-parietal region. DW was extremely accurate in single feature and conjunction visual search tasks. In enumeration tasks in which there were no distractors DW was also extremely accurate, showed a normal subitisation-counting function, and could use global shape as a guide to numerosity. However, enumeration of targets amongst distractors was only accurate for up to three or four items, after which performance decreased rapidly. The results are discussed in relation to recent theories of enumeration.

[1]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature binding, attention and object perception. , 1998, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[2]  A. Kramer,et al.  Splitting the Beam: Distribution of Attention Over Noncontiguous Regions of the Visual Field , 1995 .

[3]  Z W Pylyshyn,et al.  Tracking multiple independent targets: evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. , 1988, Spatial vision.

[4]  J. Duncan,et al.  Systematic analysis of deficits in visual attention. , 1999 .

[5]  Martha J. Farah,et al.  Mechanisms of Spatial Attention: The Relation of Macrostructure to Microstructure in Parietal Neglect , 1994, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[6]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Visual feature discrimination in simultanagnosia: A study of two cases , 1994 .

[7]  Z. Pylyshyn,et al.  What enumeration studies can show us about spatial attention: evidence for limited capacity preattentive processing. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[9]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Preverbal and verbal counting and computation , 1992, Cognition.

[10]  Lynn C. Robertson,et al.  Visual Search Performance in the Neglect Syndrome , 1989, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

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

[13]  Z. Pylyshyn,et al.  Multiple parallel access in visual attention. , 1994, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[14]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Visual marking: prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects. , 1997, Psychological review.

[15]  C. Bundesen.  A theory of visual attention. , 1990, Psychological review.

[16]  F. J. Friedrich,et al.  Effects of parietal injury on covert orienting of attention , 1984, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[17]  A. Young,et al.  Face recognition without awareness , 1987 .

[18]  J. Duncan,et al.  Competitive brain activity in visual attention , 1997, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[19]  C Bundesen,et al.  A computational theory of visual attention. , 1998, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[20]  Z. Pylyshyn.  The role of location indexes in spatial perception: A sketch of the FINST spatial-index model , 1989, Cognition.

[21]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  Dissociable mechanisms of subitizing and counting: Neuropsychological evidence from simultanagnosic patients. , 1994 .

[22]  James T. Enns,et al.  Clusters Precede Shapes in Perceptual Organization , 1997 .

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

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