A texture-processing model of the 'visual sense of number'

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 281, Issue 1790, 2014, Pages

  Morgan, M J ^a   Raphael, S ^a   Tibber, M S ^b   Dakin, Steven C ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR NEUROLOGICAL RESEARCH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Numerosity; Psychophysics; Texture perception

Indexed keywords

NUMERICAL MODEL; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; TEXTURE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHYSIOLOGY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHYSIOLOGY;

EID: 84904427942     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1137     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Burr D, Ross J. 2008 A visual sense of number. Curr. Biol. 18, 425-428. (doi: 10. 1016/j. cub. 2008. 02. 052).
2. Durgin FH. 1995 Texture density adaptation and the perceived numerosity and distribution of texture. J. Exp. Psychol HPP 21, 149-169. (doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 21. 1. 149).
3. Durgin FH. 2008 Texture density adaptation and visual number revisited. Curr. Biol. 18, R855. (doi: 10. 1016/j. cub. 2008. 07. 053).
4. Ross J, Burr DC. 2010 Vision senses number directly. J. Vis. 10, 11-18. (doi: 10. 1167/10. 12. 11).
5. Xu F, Spelke ES. 2000 Large number discrimination in 6-month-old infants. Cognition 74, B1-B11. (doi: 10. 1016/S0010-0277(99)00066-9).
6. Cantrell L, Smith LB. 2013 Set size, individuation, and attention to shape. Cognition 126, 258-267. (doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2012. 10. 007).
7. Brannon EM, Wusthoff CJ, Gallistel CR, Gibbon J. 2001 Numerical subtraction in the pigeon: evidence for a linear subjective number scale. Psychol. Sci. 12, 238-243. (doi: 10. 1111/1467-9280. 00342).
8. Gallistel CR. 1989 Animal cognition: the representation of space, time and number. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 40, 155-189. (doi: 10. 1146/annurev. ps. 40. 020189. 001103).
9. Leslie AM, Gelman R, Gallistel CR. 2008 The generative basis of natural number concepts. Trends Cogn. Sci. 12, 213-218. (doi: 10. 1016/j. tics. 2008. 03. 004).
10. Harvey BM, Klein BP, Petridou N, Dumoulin SO. 2013 Topographic representation of numerosity in the human parietal cortex. Science 341, 1123-1126. (doi: 10. 1126/science. 1239052).
11. Piazza M, Pinel P, Le Bihan D, Dehaene S. 2007 A magnitude code common to numerosities and number symbols in human intraparietal cortex. Neuron 53, 293-305. (doi: 10. 1016/j. neuron. 2006. 11. 022).
12. Nieder A. 2005 Counting on neurons: the neurobiology of numerical competence. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 177-190. (doi: 10. 1038/nrn1626).
13. Dakin SC, Tibber MS, Greenwood JA, Kingdom FA, Morgan MJ. 2011 A common visual metric for approximate number and density. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 19 552-19 557. (doi: 10. 1073/pnas. 1113195108).
14. Raphael S, Dillenburger B, Morgan M. 2013 Computation of relative numerosity of circular dot textures. J. Vis. 13, 17. (doi: 10. 1167/13. 2. 17).
15. Tibber MS, Greenwood JA, Dakin SC. 2012 Number and density discrimination rely on a common metric: similar psychophysical effects of size, contrast, and divided attention. J. Vis. 12, 8. (doi: 10. 1167/12. 6. 8).
16. Watson AB, Ahumada AJ. 2011 Blur clarified: a review and synthesis of blur discrimination. J. Vis. 11, 11-23.
17. Morgan M, Watamanuik SN, McKee SP. 2000 The use of an implicit standard for measuring discrimination thresholds. Vis. Res. 40, 109-117.
18. Chubb C, Landy MS. 1991 Orthogonal distribution analysis: a new approach to the study of texture perception. In Computational models of visual processing (eds MS Landy, JA Movshon), pp. 291-301. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Watt R, Morgan M. 1983 The recognition and representation of edge blur: evidence for spatial primitives in human vision. Vis. Res. 23, 1465-1477. (doi: 10. 1016/0042-6989(83)90158-X).
20. Szucs D, Nobes A, Devine A, Gabriel FC, Gebuis T. 2013 Visual stimulus parameters seriously compromise the measurement of approximate number system acuity and comparative effects between adults and children. Front. Psychol. 4, 444. (doi: 10. 3389/fpsyg. 2013. 00444).
21. Watson AB, Solomon JA. 1997 Model of visual contrast gain control and pattern masking. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A Opt. Image Sci. Vis. 14, 2379-2391. (doi: 10. 1364/JOSAA. 14. 002379).
22. Honig WK, Matheson WR. 1995 Discrimination of relative numerosity and stimulus mixture by pigeons with comparable tasks. J. Exp. Psychology. ABP 21, 348-362.
23. Tokita M, Ishiguchi A. 2010a Effects of element features on discrimination of relative numerosity: comparison of search symmetry and asymmetry pairs. Psychol. Res. 74, 99-109. (doi: 10. 1007/s00426-008-0183-1).
24. Tokita M, Ishiguchi A. 2010 How might the discrepancy in the effects of perceptual variables on numerosity judgment be reconciled? Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 72, 1839-1853. (doi: 10. 3758/APP. 72. 7. 1839).
25. Malik J, Perona P. 1990 Preattentive texture discrimination with early visual mechanisms. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 7, 923-932. (doi: 10. 1364/JOSAA. 7. 000923).
26. Sperling G, Chubb C, Solomon JA, Lu Z-L. 1994 Full-wave and half-wave processes in second-order motion and texture. In Higher-order processing in the visual system (eds G Bock, J Goode), pp. 287-303. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
27. Watt RJ, Morgan MJ. 1985 A theory of the primitive spatial code in human vision. Vis. Res. 25, 1661-1674. (doi: 10. 1016/0042-6989(85)90138-5).
28. Williams PE, Shapley RM. 2007 A dynamic nonlinearity and spatial phase specificity in macaque V1 neurons. J. Neurosci. 27, 5706-5718. (doi: 10. 1523/JNEUROSCI. 4743-06. 2007).
29. Jevons WS. 1871 The power of numerical discrimination. Nature 3, 281-292. (doi: 10. 1038/003281a0).
30. Au RK, Watanabe K. 2013 Numerosity underestimation with item similarity in dynamic visual display. J. Vis. 13, 5. (doi: 10. 1167/13. 8. 5).
31. Morgan MJ, Aiba TS. 1985 Vernier acuity predicted from changes in the light distribution of the retinal image. Spat. Vis 1, 151-161. (doi: 10. 1163/156856885X00161).
32. Morgan MJ. 2005 The visual computation of 2-D area by human observers. Vis. Res. 45, 2564-2570. (doi: 10. 1016/j. visres. 2005. 04. 004).
33. Nachmias J. 2011 Shape and size discrimination compared. Vis. Res. 51, 400-407. (doi: 10. 1016/j. visres. 2010. 12. 007).
34. Allik J, Tuulmets T. 1991 Occupancy model of perceived numerosity. Percept. Psychphys. 49, 303-314. (doi: 10. 3758/BF03205986).
35. Gebuis T, Reynvoet B. 2012 The role of visual information in numerosity estimation. PLoS ONE 7, e37426. (doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0037426).
36. Tibber MS, Manasseh GS, Clarke RC, Gagin G, Swanbeck SN, Butterworth B, Dakin SC. 2013 Sensitivity to numerosity is not a unique visuospatial psychophysical predictor of mathematical ability. Vis. Res. 89, 1-9. (doi: 10. 1016/j. visres. 2013. 06. 006).
37. Nys J, Content A. 2012 Judgement of discrete and continuous quantity in adults: number counts! Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 65, 675-690. (doi: 10. 1080/17470218. 2011. 619661).
38. McKee SP, Welch L. 1992 The precision of size constancy. Vis. Res. 32, 1447-1460. (doi: 10. 1016/0042-6989(92)90201-S).
39. Brainard DH. 1997 The psychophysics toolbox. Spat. Vis. 10, 433-436. (doi: 10. 1163/156856897X00357).
40. Pelli DG. 1997 The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat. Vis. 10, 437-442. (doi: 10. 1163/156856897X00366).
41. Watt RJ, Andrews DP. 1981 APE: adaptive probit estimation of a psychometric function. Curr. Psychol. Rev. 1, 205-214. (doi: 10. 1007/BF02979265).