| Title |
Evidence for a shared mechanism used in multiple-object tracking and subitizing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13414-011-0204-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dana L. Chesney, Harry Haroutioun Haladjian |
| Abstract |
It has been proposed that the mechanism that supports the ability to keep track of multiple moving objects also supports subitizing--the ability to quickly and accurately enumerate a small set of objects. To test this hypothesis, we investigated the effects on subitizing when human observers were required to perform a multiple object tracking task and an enumeration task simultaneously. In three experiments, participants (Exp. 1, N = 24; Exp. 2, N = 11; Exp. 3, N = 37) enumerated sets of zero to nine squares that were flashed while they tracked zero, two, or four moving discs. The results indicated that the number of items participants could subitize decreased by one for each item they tracked. No such pattern was seen when the enumeration task was paired with an equally difficult, but nonvisual, working memory task. These results suggest that a shared visual mechanism supports multiple object tracking and subitizing. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 4% |
| Italy | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 64 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 25% |
| Researcher | 14 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 35 | 51% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,287,458
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#848
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,011
of 135,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#5
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 135,697 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.