In EDS ansehen

Decoding of Electroencephalogram Signals Shows No Evidence of a Neural Signature for Subitizing in Sequential Numerosity.

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Titel: Decoding of Electroencephalogram Signals Shows No Evidence of a Neural Signature for Subitizing in Sequential Numerosity.
Autoren: Fornaciai, Michele, Park, Joonkoo
Quelle: Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience; Aug2021, Vol. 33 Issue 8, p1535-1548, 14p, 1 Chart, 6 Graphs
Schlagwörter: ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY, MULTIVARIATE analysis, EVIDENCE
Abstract: Numerosity perception is largely governed by two mechanisms. The first so-called subitizing system allows one to enumerate a small number of items (up to three or four) without error. The second system allows only an approximate estimation of larger numerosities. Here, we investigate the neural bases of the two systems using sequentially presented numerosity. Sequential numerosity (i.e., the number of events presented over time) starts as a subitizable set but may eventually transition into a larger numerosity in the approximate estimation range, thus offering a unique opportunity to investigate the neural signature of that transition point, or subitizing boundary. If sequential numerosity is encoded by two distinct perceptual mechanisms (i.e., for subitizing and approximate estimation), neural representations of the sequentially presented items crossing the subitizing boundary should be sharply distinguishable. In contrast, if sequential numerosity is encoded by a single perceptual mechanism for all numerosities and subitizing is achieved through an external postperceptual mechanism, no such differences in the neural representations should indicate the subitizing boundary. Using the high temporal resolution of the EEG technique incorporating a multivariate decoding analysis, we found results consistent with the latter hypothesis: No sharp representational distinctions were observed between items across the subitizing boundary, which is in contrast with the behavioral pattern of subitizing. The results support a single perceptual mechanism encoding sequential numerosities, whereas subitizing may be supported by a postperceptual attentional mechanism operating at a later processing stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience is the property of MIT Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Datenbank: Complementary Index
Beschreibung
Abstract:Numerosity perception is largely governed by two mechanisms. The first so-called subitizing system allows one to enumerate a small number of items (up to three or four) without error. The second system allows only an approximate estimation of larger numerosities. Here, we investigate the neural bases of the two systems using sequentially presented numerosity. Sequential numerosity (i.e., the number of events presented over time) starts as a subitizable set but may eventually transition into a larger numerosity in the approximate estimation range, thus offering a unique opportunity to investigate the neural signature of that transition point, or subitizing boundary. If sequential numerosity is encoded by two distinct perceptual mechanisms (i.e., for subitizing and approximate estimation), neural representations of the sequentially presented items crossing the subitizing boundary should be sharply distinguishable. In contrast, if sequential numerosity is encoded by a single perceptual mechanism for all numerosities and subitizing is achieved through an external postperceptual mechanism, no such differences in the neural representations should indicate the subitizing boundary. Using the high temporal resolution of the EEG technique incorporating a multivariate decoding analysis, we found results consistent with the latter hypothesis: No sharp representational distinctions were observed between items across the subitizing boundary, which is in contrast with the behavioral pattern of subitizing. The results support a single perceptual mechanism encoding sequential numerosities, whereas subitizing may be supported by a postperceptual attentional mechanism operating at a later processing stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:0898929X
DOI:10.1162/jocn_a_01734