Subitizing

Last updated
An observer may be able to instantly judge how many red circles are present without counting them, but would find it harder to do so for the greater number of blue circles. Fractions 4 of 12.svg
An observer may be able to instantly judge how many red circles are present without counting them, but would find it harder to do so for the greater number of blue circles.

Subitizing is the rapid, accurate, and confident judgments of numbers performed for small numbers of items. The term was coined in 1949 by E. L. Kaufman et al., [1] and is derived from the Latin adjective subitus (meaning "sudden") and captures a feeling of immediately knowing how many items lie within the visual scene, when the number of items present falls within the subitizing range. [1] Sets larger than about four to five items cannot be subitized unless the items appear in a pattern with which the person is familiar (such as the six dots on one face of a die). Large, familiar sets might be counted one-by-one (or the person might calculate the number through a rapid calculation if they can mentally group the elements into a few small sets). A person could also estimate the number of a large set—a skill similar to, but different from, subitizing.

Contents

The accuracy, speed, and confidence with which observers make judgments of the number of items are critically dependent on the number of elements to be enumerated. Judgments made for displays composed of around one to four items are rapid, [2] accurate, [3] and confident. [4] However, once there are more than four items to count, judgments are made with decreasing accuracy and confidence. [1] In addition, response times rise in a dramatic fashion, with an extra 250–350 ms added for each additional item within the display beyond about four. [5]

While the increase in response time for each additional element within a display is 250–350 ms per item outside the subitizing range, there is still a significant, albeit smaller, increase of 40–100 ms per item within the subitizing range. [2] A similar pattern of reaction times is found in young children, although with steeper slopes for both the subitizing range and the enumeration range. [6] This suggests there is no span of apprehension as such, if this is defined as the number of items which can be immediately apprehended by cognitive processes, since there is an extra cost associated with each additional item enumerated. However, the relative differences in costs associated with enumerating items within the subitizing range are small, whether measured in terms of accuracy, confidence, or speed of response. Furthermore, the values of all measures appear to differ markedly inside and outside the subitizing range. [1] So, while there may be no span of apprehension, there appear to be real differences in the ways in which a small number of elements is processed by the visual system (i.e. approximately four or fewer items), compared with larger numbers of elements (i.e. approximately more than four items).

A 2006 study demonstrated that subitizing and counting are not restricted to visual perception, but also extend to tactile perception, when observers had to name the number of stimulated fingertips. [7] A 2008 study also demonstrated subitizing and counting in auditory perception. [8] Even though the existence of subitizing in tactile perception has been questioned, [9] this effect has been replicated many times and can be therefore considered as robust. [10] [11] [12] The subitizing effect has also been obtained in tactile perception with congenitally blind adults. [13] Together, these findings support the idea that subitizing is a general perceptual mechanism extending to auditory and tactile processing.

Enumerating afterimages

As the derivation of the term "subitizing" suggests, the feeling associated with making a number judgment within the subitizing range is one of immediately being aware of the displayed elements. [3] When the number of objects presented exceeds the subitizing range, this feeling is lost, and observers commonly report an impression of shifting their viewpoint around the display, until all the elements presented have been counted. [1] The ability of observers to count the number of items within a display can be limited, either by the rapid presentation and subsequent masking of items, [14] or by requiring observers to respond quickly. [1] Both procedures have little, if any, effect on enumeration within the subitizing range. These techniques may restrict the ability of observers to count items by limiting the degree to which observers can shift their "zone of attention" [15] successively to different elements within the display.

Atkinson, Campbell, and Francis [16] demonstrated that visual afterimages could be employed in order to achieve similar results. Using a flashgun to illuminate a line of white disks, they were able to generate intense afterimages in dark-adapted observers. Observers were required to verbally report how many disks had been presented, both at 10 s and at 60 s after the flashgun exposure. Observers reported being able to see all the disks presented for at least 10 s, and being able to perceive at least some of the disks after 60 s. Unlike simply displaying the images for 10 and 60 second intervals, when presented in the form of afterimages, eye movement cannot be employed for the purpose of counting: when the subjects move their eyes, the images also move. Despite a long period of time to enumerate the number of disks presented when the number of disks presented fell outside the subitizing range (i.e., 5–12 disks), observers made consistent enumeration errors in both the 10 s and 60 s conditions. In contrast, no errors occurred within the subitizing range (i.e., 1–4 disks), in either the 10 s or 60 s conditions. [17]

Brain structures involved in subitizing and counting

The work on the enumeration of afterimages [16] [17] supports the view that different cognitive processes operate for the enumeration of elements inside and outside the subitizing range, and as such raises the possibility that subitizing and counting involve different brain circuits. However, functional imaging research has been interpreted both to support different [18] and shared processes. [19]

Bálint's syndrome

Social theory supporting the view that subitizing and counting may involve functionally and anatomically distinct brain areas comes from patients with simultanagnosia, one of the key components of Bálint's syndrome. [20] Patients with this disorder suffer from an inability to perceive visual scenes properly, being unable to localize objects in space, either by looking at the objects, pointing to them, or by verbally reporting their position. [20] Despite these dramatic symptoms, such patients are able to correctly recognize individual objects. [21] Crucially, people with simultanagnosia are unable to enumerate objects outside the subitizing range, either failing to count certain objects, or alternatively counting the same object several times. [22]

However, people with simultanagnosia have no difficulty enumerating objects within the subitizing range. [23] The disorder is associated with bilateral damage to the parietal lobe, an area of the brain linked with spatial shifts of attention. [18] These neuropsychological results are consistent with the view that the process of counting, but not that of subitizing, requires active shifts of attention. However, recent research has questioned this conclusion by finding that attention also affects subitizing. [24]

Imaging enumeration

A further source of research upon the neural processes of subitizing compared to counting comes from positron emission tomography (PET) research upon normal observers. Such research compares the brain activity associated with enumeration processes inside (i.e., 1–4 items) for subitizing, and outside (i.e., 5–8 items) for counting. [18] [19]

Such research finds that within the subitizing and counting range activation occurs bilaterally in the occipital extrastriate cortex and superior parietal lobe/intraparietal sulcus. This has been interpreted as evidence that shared processes are involved. [19] However, the existence of further activations during counting in the right inferior frontal regions, and the anterior cingulate have been interpreted as suggesting the existence of distinct processes during counting related to the activation of regions involved in the shifting of attention. [18]

Educational applications

Historically, many systems have attempted to use subitizing to identify full or partial quantities. In the twentieth century, mathematics educators started to adopt some of these systems, as reviewed in examples below, but often switched to more abstract color-coding to represent quantities up to ten.

In the 1990s, babies three weeks old were shown to differentiate between 1–3 objects, that is, to subitize. [22] A more recent meta-study summarizing five different studies concluded that infants are born with an innate ability to differentiate quantities within a small range, which increases over time. [25] By the age of seven that ability increases to 4–7 objects. Some practitioners claim that with training, children are capable of subitizing 15+ objects correctly.[ citation needed ]

Abacus

The hypothesized use of yupana, an Inca counting system, placed up to five counters in connected trays for calculations.

In each place value, the Chinese abacus uses four or five beads to represent units, which are subitized, and one or two separate beads, which symbolize fives. This allows multi-digit operations such as carrying and borrowing to occur without subitizing beyond five.

European abacuses use ten beads in each register, but usually separate them into fives by color.

Twentieth century teaching tools

The idea of instant recognition of quantities has been adopted by several pedagogical systems, such as Montessori, Cuisenaire and Dienes. However, these systems only partially use subitizing, attempting to make all quantities from 1 to 10 instantly recognizable. To achieve it, they code quantities by color and length of rods or bead strings representing them. Recognizing such visual or tactile representations and associating quantities with them involves different mental operations from subitizing.

Other applications

One of the most basic applications is in digit grouping in large numbers, which allow one to tell the size at a glance, rather than having to count. For example, writing one million (1000000) as 1,000,000 (or 1.000.000 or 1000000) or one (short) billion (1000000000) as 1,000,000,000 (or other forms, such as 1,00,00,00,000 in the Indian numbering system) makes it much easier to read. This is particularly important in accounting and finance, as an error of a single decimal digit changes the amount by a factor of ten. This is also found in computer programming languages for literal values, some of which use digit separators.

Dice, playing cards and other gaming devices traditionally split quantities into subitizable groups with recognizable patterns. The behavioural advantage of this grouping method has been scientifically investigated by Ciccione and Dehaene, [26] who showed that counting performances are improved if the groups share the same amount of items and the same repeated pattern.

A comparable application is to split up binary and hexadecimal number representations, telephone numbers, bank account numbers (e.g., IBAN, social security numbers, number plates, etc.) into groups ranging from 2 to 5 digits separated by spaces, dots, dashes, or other separators. This is done to support overseeing completeness of a number when comparing or retyping. This practice of grouping characters also supports easier memorization of large numbers and character structures.

Self assessment

There is at least one game that can be played online to self assess one's ability to subitize. [27]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Attention</span> Psychological process of selectively perceiving and prioritising discrete aspects of information

Attention is the concentration of awareness on some phenomenon to the exclusion of other stimuli. It is a process of selectively concentrating on a discrete aspect of information, whether considered subjective or objective. William James (1890) wrote that "Attention is the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalization, concentration, of consciousness are of its essence." Attention has also been described as the allocation of limited cognitive processing resources. Attention is manifested by an attentional bottleneck, in terms of the amount of data the brain can process each second; for example, in human vision, only less than 1% of the visual input data can enter the bottleneck, leading to inattentional blindness.

Dyscalculia is a disability resulting in difficulty learning or comprehending arithmetic, such as difficulty in understanding numbers, learning how to manipulate numbers, performing mathematical calculations, and learning facts in mathematics. It is sometimes colloquially referred to as "math dyslexia", though this analogy is misleading as they are distinct syndromes.

In the study of vision, visual short-term memory (VSTM) is one of three broad memory systems including iconic memory and long-term memory. VSTM is a type of short-term memory, but one limited to information within the visual domain.

Simultanagnosia is a rare neurological disorder characterized by the inability of an individual to perceive more than a single object at a time. This type of visual attention problem is one of three major components of Bálint's syndrome, an uncommon and incompletely understood variety of severe neuropsychological impairments involving space representation. The term "simultanagnosia" was first coined in 1924 by Wolpert to describe a condition where the affected individual could see individual details of a complex scene but failed to grasp the overall meaning of the image.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anne Treisman</span> English cognitive psychologist (1935–2018)

Anne Marie Treisman was an English psychologist who specialised in cognitive psychology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Change blindness</span> Perceptual phenomenon

Change blindness is a perceptual phenomenon that occurs when a change in a visual stimulus is introduced and the observer does not notice it. For example, observers often fail to notice major differences introduced into an image while it flickers off and on again. People's poor ability to detect changes has been argued to reflect fundamental limitations of human attention. Change blindness has become a highly researched topic and some have argued that it may have important practical implications in areas such as eyewitness testimony and distractions while driving.

In psychology, number sense is the term used for the hypothesis that some animals, particularly humans, have a biologically determined ability that allows them to represent and manipulate large numerical quantities. The term was popularized by Stanislas Dehaene in his 1997 book "The Number Sense".

Numerical cognition is a subdiscipline of cognitive science that studies the cognitive, developmental and neural bases of numbers and mathematics. As with many cognitive science endeavors, this is a highly interdisciplinary topic, and includes researchers in cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, neuroscience and cognitive linguistics. This discipline, although it may interact with questions in the philosophy of mathematics, is primarily concerned with empirical questions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stanislas Dehaene</span> French cognitive neuroscientist

Stanislas Dehaene is a French author and cognitive neuroscientist whose research centers on a number of topics, including numerical cognition, the neural basis of reading and the neural correlates of consciousness. As of 2017, he is a professor at the Collège de France and, since 1989, the director of INSERM Unit 562, "Cognitive Neuroimaging".

Number systems have progressed from the use of fingers and tally marks, perhaps more than 40,000 years ago, to the use of sets of glyphs able to represent any conceivable number efficiently. The earliest known unambiguous notations for numbers emerged in Mesopotamia about 5000 or 6000 years ago.

In human developmental psychology or non-human primate experiments, ordinal numerical competence or ordinal numerical knowledge is the ability to count objects in order and to understand the greater than and less than relationships between numbers. It has been shown that children as young as two can make some ordinal numerical decisions. There are studies indicating that some non-human primates, like chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys have some ordinal numerical competence.

Body schema is an organism's internal model of its own body, including the position of its limbs. The neurologist Sir Henry Head originally defined it as a postural model of the body that actively organizes and modifies 'the impressions produced by incoming sensory impulses in such a way that the final sensation of body position, or of locality, rises into consciousness charged with a relation to something that has happened before'. As a postural model that keeps track of limb position, it plays an important role in control of action.

Infant cognitive development is the first stage of human cognitive development, in the youngest children. The academic field of infant cognitive development studies of how psychological processes involved in thinking and knowing develop in young children. Information is acquired in a number of ways including through sight, sound, touch, taste, smell and language, all of which require processing by our cognitive system. However, cognition begins through social bonds between children and caregivers, which gradually increase through the essential motive force of Shared intentionality. The notion of Shared intentionality describes unaware processes during social learning at the onset of life when organisms in the simple reflexes substage of the sensorimotor stage of cognitive development do not maintain communication via the sensory system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illusory conjunctions</span> Illusory conjunctions

Illusory conjunctions are psychological effects in which participants combine features of two objects into one object. There are visual illusory conjunctions, auditory illusory conjunctions, and illusory conjunctions produced by combinations of visual and tactile stimuli. Visual illusory conjunctions are thought to occur due to a lack of visual spatial attention, which depends on fixation and the amount of time allotted to focus on an object. With a short span of time to interpret an object, blending of different aspects within a region of the visual field – like shapes and colors – can occasionally be skewed, which results in visual illusory conjunctions. For example, in a study designed by Anne Treisman and Schmidt, participants were required to view a visual presentation of numbers and shapes in different colors. Some shapes were larger than others but all shapes and numbers were evenly spaced and shown for just 200 ms. When the participants were asked to recall the shapes they reported answers such as a small green triangle instead of a small green circle. If the space between the objects is smaller, illusory conjunctions occur more often.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Numerosity adaptation effect</span> Phenomenon in numerical cognition

The numerosity adaptation effect is a perceptual phenomenon in numerical cognition which demonstrates non-symbolic numerical intuition and exemplifies how numerical percepts can impose themselves upon the human brain automatically. This effect was first described in 2008.

The approximate number system (ANS) is a cognitive system that supports the estimation of the magnitude of a group without relying on language or symbols. The ANS is credited with the non-symbolic representation of all numbers greater than four, with lesser values being carried out by the parallel individuation system, or object tracking system. Beginning in early infancy, the ANS allows an individual to detect differences in magnitude between groups. The precision of the ANS improves throughout childhood development and reaches a final adult level of approximately 15% accuracy, meaning an adult could distinguish 100 items versus 115 items without counting. The ANS plays a crucial role in development of other numerical abilities, such as the concept of exact number and simple arithmetic. The precision level of a child's ANS has been shown to predict subsequent mathematical achievement in school. The ANS has been linked to the intraparietal sulcus of the brain.

In cognitive psychology, intertrial priming is an accumulation of the priming effect over multiple trials, where "priming" is the effect of the exposure to one stimulus on subsequently presented stimuli. Intertrial priming occurs when a target feature is repeated from one trial to the next, and typically results in speeded response times to the target. A target is the stimulus participants are required to search for. For example, intertrial priming occurs when the task is to respond to either a red or a green target, and the response time to a red target is faster if the preceding trial also has a red target.

Number sense in animals is the ability of creatures to represent and discriminate quantities of relative sizes by number sense. It has been observed in various species, from fish to primates. Animals are believed to have an approximate number system, the same system for number representation demonstrated by humans, which is more precise for smaller quantities and less so for larger values. An exact representation of numbers higher than three has not been attested in wild animals, but can be demonstrated after a period of training in captive animals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Spatial ability</span> Capacity to understand 3D relationships

Spatial ability or visuo-spatial ability is the capacity to understand, reason, and remember the visual and spatial relations among objects or space.

Visual indexing theory, also known as FINST theory, is a theory of early visual perception developed by Zenon Pylyshyn in the 1980s. It proposes a pre-attentive mechanism whose function is to individuate salient elements of a visual scene, and track their locations across space and time. Developed in response to what Pylyshyn viewed as limitations of prominent theories of visual perception at the time, visual indexing theory is supported by several lines of empirical evidence.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kaufman, E.L.; Lord, M.W.; Reese, T.W. & Volkmann, J. (1949). "The discrimination of visual number". American Journal of Psychology . The American Journal of Psychology. 62 (4): 498–525. doi:10.2307/1418556. JSTOR   1418556. PMID   15392567.
  2. 1 2 Saltzman, I.J. & Garner, W.R. (1948). "Reaction time as a measure of span of attention". The Journal of Psychology . 25 (2): 227–241. doi:10.1080/00223980.1948.9917373. PMID   18907281.
  3. 1 2 Jevons, W.S. (1871). "The power of numerical discrimination". Nature. 3 (67): 281–282. Bibcode:1871Natur...3..281J. doi: 10.1038/003281a0 .
  4. ↑ Taves, E.H. (1941). "Two mechanisms for the perception of visual numerousness". Archives of Psychology. 37: 1–47.
  5. ↑ Trick, L.M. & Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1994). "Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision". Psychological Review. 101 (1): 80–102. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.80. PMID   8121961.
  6. ↑ Chi, M.T.H. & Klahr, D. (1975). "Span and rate of apprehension in children and adults". Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 19 (3): 434–439. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(75)90072-7. PMID   1236928.
  7. ↑ Riggs, K.J.; Ferrand, L.; Lancelin, D.; Fryziel, L.; Dumur, G. & Simpson, A. (2006). "Subitizing in tactile perception". Psychological Science. 17 (4): 271–272. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01696.x. PMID   16623680. S2CID   37333935.
  8. ↑ Camos, V. & Tillmann, B. (2008). "Discontinuity in the enumeration of sequentially presented auditory and visual stimuli". Cognition. 107 (3): 1135–1143. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.002. PMID   18068696. S2CID   14999504.
  9. ↑ Gallace A.; Tan H.Z.; Spence C. (2008). "Can tactile stimuli be subitised? An unresolved controversy within the literature on numerosity judgments". Perception. 37 (5): 782–800. doi:10.1068/p5767. PMID   18605150. S2CID   2820818.
  10. ↑ Plaisier, M.A.; Bergmann Tiest, W.M. & Kappers, A.M.L. (2009). "One, two, three, many - Subitizing in active touch". Acta Psychologica. 131 (2): 163–170. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.04.003. hdl: 1874/35195 . PMID   19460685.
  11. ↑ Plaisier, M.A.; Bergmann Tiest, W.M. & Kappers, A.M.L. (2010). "Range dependent processing of visual numerosity: similarities across vision and haptics". Experimental Brain Research. 204 (4): 525–537. doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2319-y. PMC   2903696 . PMID   20549196.
  12. ↑ Plaisier, M.A. & Smeets, J.B.J. (2011). "Haptic subitizing across the fingers". Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. 73 (5): 1579–1585. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0124-8. PMC   3118010 . PMID   21479724.
  13. ↑ Ferrand, L.; Riggs, K.J. & Castronovo, J. (2010). "Subitizing in congenitally blind adults". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 17 (6): 840–845. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.6.840 . PMID   21169578.
  14. ↑ Mandler, G. & Shebo, B.J. (1982). "Subitizing: An analysis of its component processes". Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 111 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.111.1.1. PMID   6460833.
  15. ↑ LaBerge, D.; Carlson, R.L.; Williams, J.K. & Bunney, B.G. (1997). "Shifting attention in visual space: Tests of moving-spotlight models versus an activity-distribution model". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 23 (5): 1380–1392. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.23.5.1380. PMID   9336958.
  16. 1 2 Atkinson, J.; Campbell, F.W. & Francis, M.R. (1976). "The magic number 4±0: A new look at visual numerosity judgements". Perception. 5 (3): 327–334. doi:10.1068/p050327. PMID   980674. S2CID   26319756.
  17. 1 2 Simon, T.J. & Vaishnavi, S. (1996). "Subitizing and counting depend on different attentional mechanisms: Evidence from visual enumeration in afterimages". Perception & Psychophysics. 58 (6): 915–926. doi: 10.3758/BF03205493 . PMID   8768186.
  18. 1 2 3 4 Corbetta, M.; Shulman, G.L.; Miezin, F.M. & Petersen, S.E. (1995). "Superior parietal cortex activation during spatial attention shifts and visual feature conjunction". Science. 270 (5237): 802–805. Bibcode:1995Sci...270..802C. doi:10.1126/science.270.5237.802. PMID   7481770. S2CID   22131790.
  19. 1 2 3 Piazza, M; Mechelli, A; Butterworth, B & Price, CJ (2002). "Are subitizing and counting implemented as separate or functionally overlapping processes?". NeuroImage. 15 (2): 435–46. doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0980. PMID   11798277. S2CID   13959500.
  20. 1 2 Balint, R. (1909). "Seelenlahmung des 'Schauens', optische Ataxie, raumliche Storung der Aufmerksamkeit". Monatsschr Psychiatr Neurol (in German). 25 (1): 51–66. doi:10.1159/000210464.
  21. ↑ Robertson, L.; Treisman, A.; Freidman-Hill, S. & Grabowecky, M. (1997). "The interaction of spatial and object pathways: Evidence from Balint's Syndrome". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 9 (3): 295–317. doi:10.1162/jocn.1997.9.3.295. PMID   23965009. S2CID   27076617.
  22. 1 2 Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics . New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0195110043.
  23. ↑ Dehaene, S. & Cohen, L. (1994). "Dissociable mechanisms of subitizing and counting: neuropsychological evidence from simultanagnosic patients". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 20 (5): 958–975. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20.5.958. PMID   7964531.
  24. ↑ Vetter, P; Butterworth, B & Bahrami, B (2008). Warrant, Eric (ed.). "Modulating attentional load affects numerosity estimation: Evidence against a pre-attentive subitizing mechanism". PLOS ONE. 3 (9): e3269. Bibcode:2008PLoSO...3.3269V. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003269 . PMC   2533400 . PMID   18813345.
  25. ↑ Rouselle, L. & Noël, M.P. (2008). "The development of automatic numerosity processes in preschoolers: Evidence for numerosity-perceptual interference". Developmental Psychology. 44 (2): 544–560. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.544. PMID   18331143.
  26. ↑ Ciccione, L. & Dehaene, S. (2020). "Grouping mechanisms in numerosity perception". Open Mind. 4 (1): 102–118. doi: 10.1162/opmi_a_00037 . PMC   8412191 . PMID   34485793.
  27. ↑ Moylan, Andrew. "Test Your "Subitizing" Ability". Wolfram Blog. Wolfram Research. Retrieved 28 December 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.