Content deleted Content added
call a theory a theory |
m Open access bot: url-access updated in citation with #oabot. |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Visual perception theory}}
'''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 processing|pre-attentive]] mechanism (a ‘FINST’) 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.
Line 76 ⟶ 77:
=== Subitizing studies ===
{{See also|Numerical cognition}}
[[Subitizing]] refers to the rapid and accurate enumeration of small numbers of items. Numerous studies (dating back to [[William Stanley Jevons|Jevons]] in 1871)<ref>Jevons, W. (1871). The power of numerical discrimination. Nature, 3, 281–282.</ref> have demonstrated that subjects can very quickly and accurately report the quantity of objects randomly presented on a display, when they number fewer than around five. While larger quantities require subjects to count or estimate — at great expense of time and accuracy — it seems that a different enumeration method is employed in these low-quantity cases. In 1949, Kaufman, Lord, Reese and Volkmann coined the term 'subitizing' to describe the phenomenon.<ref>Kaufman, E.L., Lord, M.W., Reese, T.W., & Volkmann, J. (1949). The discrimination of visual number. American Journal of Psychology, 62 (4), 498–525.</ref>▼
In 2023 a study of [[Single-neuron recordings|single neuron recordings]] in the [[medial temporal lobe]] of neurosurgical patients judging numbers reported evidence of two separate neural mechanisms with a boundary in [[Neural coding|neuronal coding]] around number 4 that correlates with the behavioural transition from subitizing to estimation, supporting the old observation of Jevons.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kutter |first=Esther F. |last2=Dehnen |first2=Gert |last3=Borger |first3=Valeri |last4=Surges |first4=Rainer |last5=Mormann |first5=Florian |last6=Nieder |first6=Andreas |date=2023-10-02 |title=Distinct neuronal representation of small and large numbers in the human medial temporal lobe |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01709-3 |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |language=en |volume=7 |issue=11 |pages=1998–2007 |doi=10.1038/s41562-023-01709-3 |issn=2397-3374|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Saplakoglu |first=Yasemin |date=9 November 2023 |title=Why the Human Brain Perceives Small Numbers Better |url=https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-human-brain-perceives-small-numbers-better-20231109/ |website=[[Quanta Magazine]]}}</ref>
▲[[Subitizing]] refers to the rapid and accurate enumeration of small numbers of items. Numerous studies (dating back to 1871)<ref>Jevons, W. (1871). The power of numerical discrimination. Nature, 3, 281–282.</ref> have demonstrated that subjects can very quickly and accurately report the quantity of objects randomly presented on a display, when they number fewer than around five. While larger quantities require subjects to count or estimate — at great expense of time and accuracy — it seems that a different enumeration method is employed in these low-quantity cases. In 1949, Kaufman, Lord, Reese and Volkmann coined the term 'subitizing' to describe the phenomenon.<ref>Kaufman, E.L., Lord, M.W., Reese, T.W., & Volkmann, J. (1949). The discrimination of visual number. American Journal of Psychology, 62 (4), 498–525.</ref>
'''Experimental setup'''
Line 106 ⟶ 109:
Burkell and Pylyshyn found that subjects were indeed quicker to identify the target object in the subset feature search condition than they were in the subset conjunction search condition, suggesting that the subsetted objects were successfully prioritised. In other words, the subsets "could, in a number of important ways, be accessed by the visual system as though they were the only items present".<ref name="Pylyshyn94"/> Furthermore, the subsetted objects' particular positions within the display made no difference to subjects' ability to search across them — even when they were distally located.<ref name="Burkell"/> Watson and Humphreys (1997) reported similar findings.<ref>Watson, D.G. and Humphreys, G.W. (1997). Visual marking: prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects. Psychological Review. 104, 90–122</ref> These results are consistent with the predictions of visual indexing theory: FINSTs provide a possible mechanism by which the subsets were prioritised.
==See also==
*[[Sparse distributed memory]]
==References==
| |||