
AbstractHumans, including infants, and many other species have a capacity for rapid, nonverbal estimation of numerosity. However, the mechanisms for number perception are still not clear; some maintain that the system calculates numerosity via density estimates—similar to those involved in texture—while others maintain that more direct, dedicated mechanisms are involved. Here we show that provided that items are not packed too densely, human subjects are far more sensitive to numerosity than to either density or area. In a two-dimensional space spanning density, area and numerosity, subjects spontaneously react with far greater sensitivity to changes in numerosity, than either area or density. Even in tasks where they were explicitly instructed to make density or area judgments, they responded spontaneously to number. We conclude, that humans extract number information, directly and spontaneously, via dedicated mechanisms.
Adult, Male, Science, Q, Mathematical Concepts, Texture Density Adaptation; Approximate Number System; Individual-Differences; Perceived Numerosity; Primate Parietal; Visual Sense; Acuity; Cortex; Representation; Achievement, Article, Judgment, Discrimination, Psychological, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Visual Perception, Humans, Female, Chemistry (all); Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all); Physics and Astronomy (all), Cues
Adult, Male, Science, Q, Mathematical Concepts, Texture Density Adaptation; Approximate Number System; Individual-Differences; Perceived Numerosity; Primate Parietal; Visual Sense; Acuity; Cortex; Representation; Achievement, Article, Judgment, Discrimination, Psychological, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Visual Perception, Humans, Female, Chemistry (all); Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all); Physics and Astronomy (all), Cues
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 160 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
