» Articles » PMID: 36258143

Visual Field Asymmetries in Numerosity Processing

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialties Psychiatry
Psychology
Date 2022 Oct 18
PMID 36258143
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

A small number of objects can be rapidly and accurately enumerated, whereas a larger number of objects can only be approximately enumerated. These subitizing and estimation abilities, respectively, are both spatial processes relying on extracting information across spatial locations. Nevertheless, whether and how these processes vary across visual field locations remains unknown. Here, we examined if enumeration displays asymmetries around the visual field. Experiment 1 tested small number (1-6) enumeration at cardinal and non-cardinal peripheral locations while manipulating the spacing among the objects. Experiment 2 examined enumeration at cardinal locations in more detail while minimising crowding. Both experiments demonstrated a Horizontal-Vertical Asymmetry (HVA) where performance was better along the horizontal axis relative to the vertical. Experiment 1 found that this effect was modulated by spacing with stronger asymmetry at closer spacing. Experiment 2 revealed further asymmetries: a Vertical Meridian Asymmetry (VMA) with better enumeration on the lower vertical meridian than on the upper and a Horizontal Meridian Asymmetry (HMA) with better enumeration along the left horizontal meridian than along the right. All three asymmetries were evident for both subitizing and estimation. HVA and VMA have been observed in a range of visual tasks, indicating that they might be inherited from early visual constraints. However, HMA is observed primarily in mid-level tasks, often involving attention. These results suggest that while enumeration processes can be argued to inherit low-level visual constraints, the findings are, parsimoniously, consistent with visual attention playing a role in both subitizing and estimation.

Citing Articles

Asymmetries in foveal vision.

Jenks S, Carrasco M, Poletti M bioRxiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39763996 PMC: 11702834. DOI: 10.1101/2024.12.20.629715.


Effects of spatial location on distractor interference.

Kerzel D, Constant M J Vis. 2024; 24(9):4.

PMID: 39240585 PMC: 11382967. DOI: 10.1167/jov.24.9.4.


Do microsaccades vary with discriminability around the visual field?.

Purokayastha S, Roberts M, Carrasco M bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 38260406 PMC: 10802594. DOI: 10.1101/2024.01.11.575288.


Testing hemifield independence for divided attention in visual object tasks.

Popovkina D, Palmer J, Moore C, Boynton G J Vis. 2023; 23(13):3.

PMID: 37922155 PMC: 10629520. DOI: 10.1167/jov.23.13.3.


Polar angle asymmetries in visual perception and neural architecture.

Himmelberg M, Winawer J, Carrasco M Trends Neurosci. 2023; 46(6):445-458.

PMID: 37031051 PMC: 10192146. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2023.03.006.


References
1.
Bertamini M, Zito M, Scott-Samuel N, Hulleman J . Spatial clustering and its effect on perceived clustering, numerosity, and dispersion. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2016; 78(5):1460-71. PMC: 4914534. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-016-1100-0. View

2.
Brainard D . The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spat Vis. 1997; 10(4):433-6. View

3.
Saarinen J, Levi D . Orientation anisotropy in vernier acuity. Vision Res. 1995; 35(17):2449-61. View

4.
Trick L, Pylyshyn Z . Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision. Psychol Rev. 1994; 101(1):80-102. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.101.1.80. View

5.
Corbetta M, Miezin F, Shulman G, Petersen S . A PET study of visuospatial attention. J Neurosci. 1993; 13(3):1202-26. PMC: 6576604. View