Intentional subitizing: Exploring the role of automaticity in enumeration

• Published in: Cognition 2012-08, Vol.124 (2), p.107-116
• Main Authors: Pincham, Hannah L., Szűcs, Dénes
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Analysis of Variance; Attention; Automaticity; Biological and medical sciences; Cognition; Cognition. Intelligence; Cognitive Processes; Computation; Counting; Data Analysis; Discrimination Learning; Enumeration; Evaluation; Experiments; Female; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Humans; Magnitude representation; Male; Miscellaneous; Numerical cognition; Pattern Recognition, Visual; Psychological factors; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Reaction Time; Social psychology; Subitizing; Task Analysis; Vision, Ocular; Visual Stimuli
• ISSN: 0010-0277; 1873-7838
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.05.010

► We empirically investigate the role of automaticity in enumeration. ► We show that, contrary to current theories, subitizing is not an automatic process. ► Access to numerical information requires an explicit intention to enumerate. Subitizing is traditionally described as the rapid, preattentive and automatic enumeration of up to four items. Counting, by contrast, describes the enumeration of larger sets of items and requires slower serial shifts of attention. Although recent research has called into question the preattentive nature of subitizing, whether or not numerosities in the subitizing range can be automatically accessed is yet to be empirically tested. In the current study, participants searched for two pre-defined digits in a circular visual-search array. Distractor dots of various set sizes were placed at the centre of the array. Despite the relevance of the distractor numerosities to the target detection task, the distractors did not influence target detection, thereby suggesting that their numerosities were not automatically accessed in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, participants were explicitly instructed to enumerate the distractor dots. Here, congruent and incongruent distractor numerosities influenced the target detection task, thereby revealing that the distractor dots were capable of generating interference. Experiment 3 ensured that dots were attended by asking participants to detect the luminance of dots. Data confirmed that subitizing was not automatic. The present study also supported the alleged discontinuity between the subitizing and counting ranges because an examination of reaction time gradients in Experiment 2 found the counting gradient to be significantly steeper than the subitizing gradient. In sum, the results suggest that subitizing is a distinct but non-automatic style of enumeration.