Successful discrimination of tiny numerical differences

Are there some differences so small that we cannot detect them? Are some quantities so similar (e.g., the number of spots on two speckled hens) that they simply look the same to us? Although modern psychophysical theories such as Signal Detection Theory would predict that, with enough trials, even m...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of numerical cognition 2023-03, Vol.9 (1), p.196-205
Main Authors: Sanford, Emily M., Halberda, Justin
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
approximate number sense
guessing
limits
magnitude discrimination
psychophysics
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-ff3c4593c20a61f992066cf46b33684e65e4f8b615893ee7dd0382db45f61e1a3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-ff3c4593c20a61f992066cf46b33684e65e4f8b615893ee7dd0382db45f61e1a3
container_end_page 205
container_issue 1
container_start_page 196
container_title Journal of numerical cognition
container_volume 9
creator Sanford, Emily M.
Halberda, Justin
description Are there some differences so small that we cannot detect them? Are some quantities so similar (e.g., the number of spots on two speckled hens) that they simply look the same to us? Although modern psychophysical theories such as Signal Detection Theory would predict that, with enough trials, even minute differences would be perceptible at an above-chance rate, this prediction has rarely been empirically tested for any psychological dimension, and never for the domain of number perception. In an experiment with over 400 adults, we find that observers can distinguish which of two collections has more dots from a brief glance. Impressively, observers performed above chance on every numerical comparison tested, even when discriminating a comparison as difficult as 50 versus 51 dots. Thus, we present empirical evidence that numerical discrimination abilities, consistent with SDT, are remarkably fine-grained.
doi_str_mv 10.5964/jnc.10699
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>doaj_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_f00e705a017349e78003c9305a23a6a9</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_f00e705a017349e78003c9305a23a6a9</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>oai_doaj_org_article_f00e705a017349e78003c9305a23a6a9</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-ff3c4593c20a61f992066cf46b33684e65e4f8b615893ee7dd0382db45f61e1a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkE1LAzEQhoMoWGoP_oO9etg6-ZpNjlL8KBQ8qOeQZieS0u5Ksj3037ttpXia4eWdh-Fh7J7DXFtUj5suzDmgtVdsIiTK2jTIr__tt2xWygYAuBUajZiw5mMfApUS99uqTSXktEudH1LfVX2shtQdqm6_o5yCPxZipEzdeHDHbqLfFpr9zSn7enn-XLzVq_fX5eJpVQeh-VDHKIPSVgYBHnm0VgBiiArXUqJRhJpUNGvk2lhJ1LQtSCPatdIROXEvp2x55ra937if8T2fD673yZ2CPn87n4cUtuQiADWgPfBGKkuNAZDByjER0qO3I-vhzAq5LyVTvPA4uKNANwp0J4HyF4wPYf4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Successful discrimination of tiny numerical differences</title><source>ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources</source><creator>Sanford, Emily M. ; Halberda, Justin</creator><creatorcontrib>Sanford, Emily M. ; Halberda, Justin</creatorcontrib><description>Are there some differences so small that we cannot detect them? Are some quantities so similar (e.g., the number of spots on two speckled hens) that they simply look the same to us? Although modern psychophysical theories such as Signal Detection Theory would predict that, with enough trials, even minute differences would be perceptible at an above-chance rate, this prediction has rarely been empirically tested for any psychological dimension, and never for the domain of number perception. In an experiment with over 400 adults, we find that observers can distinguish which of two collections has more dots from a brief glance. Impressively, observers performed above chance on every numerical comparison tested, even when discriminating a comparison as difficult as 50 versus 51 dots. Thus, we present empirical evidence that numerical discrimination abilities, consistent with SDT, are remarkably fine-grained.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2363-8761</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2363-8761</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5964/jnc.10699</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>PsychOpen GOLD/ Leibniz Insitute for Psychology</publisher><subject>approximate number sense ; guessing ; limits ; magnitude discrimination ; psychophysics</subject><ispartof>Journal of numerical cognition, 2023-03, Vol.9 (1), p.196-205</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-ff3c4593c20a61f992066cf46b33684e65e4f8b615893ee7dd0382db45f61e1a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-ff3c4593c20a61f992066cf46b33684e65e4f8b615893ee7dd0382db45f61e1a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2898-6057 ; 0000-0002-5619-3249</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sanford, Emily M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halberda, Justin</creatorcontrib><title>Successful discrimination of tiny numerical differences</title><title>Journal of numerical cognition</title><description>Are there some differences so small that we cannot detect them? Are some quantities so similar (e.g., the number of spots on two speckled hens) that they simply look the same to us? Although modern psychophysical theories such as Signal Detection Theory would predict that, with enough trials, even minute differences would be perceptible at an above-chance rate, this prediction has rarely been empirically tested for any psychological dimension, and never for the domain of number perception. In an experiment with over 400 adults, we find that observers can distinguish which of two collections has more dots from a brief glance. Impressively, observers performed above chance on every numerical comparison tested, even when discriminating a comparison as difficult as 50 versus 51 dots. Thus, we present empirical evidence that numerical discrimination abilities, consistent with SDT, are remarkably fine-grained.</description><subject>approximate number sense</subject><subject>guessing</subject><subject>limits</subject><subject>magnitude discrimination</subject><subject>psychophysics</subject><issn>2363-8761</issn><issn>2363-8761</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkE1LAzEQhoMoWGoP_oO9etg6-ZpNjlL8KBQ8qOeQZieS0u5Ksj3037ttpXia4eWdh-Fh7J7DXFtUj5suzDmgtVdsIiTK2jTIr__tt2xWygYAuBUajZiw5mMfApUS99uqTSXktEudH1LfVX2shtQdqm6_o5yCPxZipEzdeHDHbqLfFpr9zSn7enn-XLzVq_fX5eJpVQeh-VDHKIPSVgYBHnm0VgBiiArXUqJRhJpUNGvk2lhJ1LQtSCPatdIROXEvp2x55ra937if8T2fD673yZ2CPn87n4cUtuQiADWgPfBGKkuNAZDByjER0qO3I-vhzAq5LyVTvPA4uKNANwp0J4HyF4wPYf4</recordid><startdate>20230331</startdate><enddate>20230331</enddate><creator>Sanford, Emily M.</creator><creator>Halberda, Justin</creator><general>PsychOpen GOLD/ Leibniz Insitute for Psychology</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2898-6057</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5619-3249</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230331</creationdate><title>Successful discrimination of tiny numerical differences</title><author>Sanford, Emily M. ; Halberda, Justin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-ff3c4593c20a61f992066cf46b33684e65e4f8b615893ee7dd0382db45f61e1a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>approximate number sense</topic><topic>guessing</topic><topic>limits</topic><topic>magnitude discrimination</topic><topic>psychophysics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sanford, Emily M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halberda, Justin</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Journal of numerical cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sanford, Emily M.</au><au>Halberda, Justin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Successful discrimination of tiny numerical differences</atitle><jtitle>Journal of numerical cognition</jtitle><date>2023-03-31</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>196</spage><epage>205</epage><pages>196-205</pages><issn>2363-8761</issn><eissn>2363-8761</eissn><abstract>Are there some differences so small that we cannot detect them? Are some quantities so similar (e.g., the number of spots on two speckled hens) that they simply look the same to us? Although modern psychophysical theories such as Signal Detection Theory would predict that, with enough trials, even minute differences would be perceptible at an above-chance rate, this prediction has rarely been empirically tested for any psychological dimension, and never for the domain of number perception. In an experiment with over 400 adults, we find that observers can distinguish which of two collections has more dots from a brief glance. Impressively, observers performed above chance on every numerical comparison tested, even when discriminating a comparison as difficult as 50 versus 51 dots. Thus, we present empirical evidence that numerical discrimination abilities, consistent with SDT, are remarkably fine-grained.</abstract><pub>PsychOpen GOLD/ Leibniz Insitute for Psychology</pub><doi>10.5964/jnc.10699</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2898-6057</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5619-3249</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2363-8761
ispartof Journal of numerical cognition, 2023-03, Vol.9 (1), p.196-205
issn 2363-8761
2363-8761
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_f00e705a017349e78003c9305a23a6a9
source ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
subjects approximate number sense
guessing
limits
magnitude discrimination
psychophysics
title Successful discrimination of tiny numerical differences
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T18%3A29%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-doaj_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Successful%20discrimination%20of%20tiny%20numerical%20differences&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20numerical%20cognition&rft.au=Sanford,%20Emily%20M.&rft.date=2023-03-31&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=196&rft.epage=205&rft.pages=196-205&rft.issn=2363-8761&rft.eissn=2363-8761&rft_id=info:doi/10.5964/jnc.10699&rft_dat=%3Cdoaj_cross%3Eoai_doaj_org_article_f00e705a017349e78003c9305a23a6a9%3C/doaj_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-ff3c4593c20a61f992066cf46b33684e65e4f8b615893ee7dd0382db45f61e1a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true