title: Effects of perceptual variables on numerosity comparison in 5-6-year-olds and adults.
abstract: Although a critical issue in the debate over the existence of abstract numerical representation, it remains unclear whether and how perceptual variables affect numerosity judgment and how they change across development stages. In this research, we examine the effects of perceptual variables on approximate numerosity comparison in 5-6-year-olds and adults using the identical experimental procedure. In the assessment of the effect of the perceptual variables, we measured precision (i.e., Weber fraction) and accuracy (i.e., point of subjective equality; PSE) of the numerosity comparison. In Study 1, we tested how the manipulation of the cumulative element area would affect approximate numerosity comparison. The results showed that Weber fractions increased and the size of bias enlarged in the large element condition in both adults and 5-6-year-olds. In study 2, we tested how the manipulation of the array area would affect the precision and accuracy of approximate numerosity comparison. The results demonstrated that Weber fractions increased and the size of bias enlarged in the large array condition in both adults and 5-6-year-olds. Overall, our results suggest that the effect of perceptual variables on 5-6-year-olds is qualitatively similar to that on adults. In addition, we also tested whether the performance of approximate comparison correlated with the initial numerical skill in 5-6-year-olds to reveal least relationship between them.
authors.affiliation: Graduate School of Humanities and Sciences, Ochanomizu University Tokyo, Japan.
authors.forename: Midori
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Tokita
authors.forename: Akira
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Ishiguchi
keywords: approximate number representation; method of constant stimuli development; weber fraction
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2010 Jun;21(6):873-81
references.pmid: 20431048
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Nov;7(11):483-8
references.pmid: 14585444
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Jul;8(7):307-14
references.pmid: 15242690
references.citation: Prog Neurobiol. 2008 Feb;84(2):132-47
references.pmid: 18155348
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2004 Jun;16(5):889-901
references.pmid: 15200715
references.citation: Neuron. 2004 Oct 28;44(3):547-55
references.pmid: 15504333
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2009 Aug;32(3-4):313-28; discussion 328-73
references.pmid: 19712504
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1991 Apr;49(4):303-14
references.pmid: 2030927
references.citation: Vision Res. 1983;23(8):811-20
references.pmid: 6623941
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2004 Jan;87(1):57-84
references.pmid: 14698689
references.citation: Neuron. 2003 Feb 20;37(4):719-25
references.pmid: 12597867
references.citation: Nature. 2008 Oct 2;455(7213):665-8
references.pmid: 18776888
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2013 Jun;24(6):1037-43
references.pmid: 23625879
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2006 Nov;95(3):215-29
references.pmid: 16808924
references.citation: Behav Brain Funct. 2010 Feb 18;6:13
references.pmid: 20167066
references.citation: Child Dev. 2008 Mar-Apr;79(2):476-89
references.pmid: 18366435
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2008 Mar;44(2):544-60
references.pmid: 18331143
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010 Oct;72(7):1839-53
references.pmid: 20952782
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2008 Sep;44(5):1457-65
references.pmid: 18793076
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1984 Jun;35(6):536-42
references.pmid: 6483555
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2005 Jan;8(1):88-101
references.pmid: 15647069
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 May;107(2):460-78
references.pmid: 18082157
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2002 Mar;128(2):278-94
references.pmid: 11931520
references.citation: Perception. 1991;20(5):681-6
references.pmid: 1806909
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Nov 13;109(46):18737-42
references.pmid: 23091023
references.citation: Annu Rev Neurosci. 2009;32:185-208
references.pmid: 19400715
references.citation: Percept Mot Skills. 1988 Oct;67(2):656-8
references.pmid: 3217220
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2008 Sep;11(5):669-80
references.pmid: 18801122
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Apr;19(2):285-93
references.pmid: 22231727
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2007 Jun;179(4):631-42
references.pmid: 17216413
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37426
references.pmid: 22616007
references.citation: Cognition. 1992 Aug;44(1-2):43-74
references.pmid: 1511586
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Dec;14(12):542-51
references.pmid: 21055996
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Dec 19;103(51):19599-604
references.pmid: 17159143
references.citation: Cognition. 2001 Mar;78(3):B27-40
references.pmid: 11124353
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Jun;16(3):509-17
references.pmid: 19451377
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Feb;13(2):83-91
references.pmid: 19131268