*Result*: Part-whole effects in visual number estimation.
Title:
Part-whole effects in visual number estimation.
Authors:
Guan C; Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China. chenxiaoguan@zju.edu.cn.; Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA. chenxiaoguan@zju.edu.cn., Schwitzgebel D; Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.; Institut Jean Nicod/Laboratoire de Sciences Cognitives et Psycholinguistique, École Normale Supérieure-Paris Sciences et Lettres, 75005, Paris, France., Firestone C; Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA., Hafri A; Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA. alon@udel.edu.; Department of Linguistics and Cognitive Science, University of Delaware, 15 Orchard Road, Ewing Hall, Room 417, Newark, DE, 19716, USA. alon@udel.edu.
Source:
Attention, perception & psychophysics [Atten Percept Psychophys] 2026 Jan 08; Vol. 88 (2), pp. 45. Date of Electronic Publication: 2026 Jan 08.
Publication Type:
Journal Article
Language:
English
Journal Info:
Publisher: Springer Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101495384 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1943-393X (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19433921 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Atten Percept Psychophys Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s):
Publication: 2011- : New York : Springer
Original Publication: Austin, Tex. : Psychonomic Society
Original Publication: Austin, Tex. : Psychonomic Society
MeSH Terms:
References:
Adriano, A., Rinaldi, L., & Girelli, L. (2021). Visual illusions as a tool to hijack numerical perception: Disentangling nonsymbolic number from its continuous visual properties. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000844. (PMID: 10.1037/xhp000084433492161)
Barth, H., Kanwisher, N., & Spelke, E. (2003). The construction of large number representations in adults. Cognition, 86(3), 201–221. (PMID: 1248573810.1016/S0010-0277(02)00178-6)
Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. F. Garrett, L. Nadel, & M. A. Peterson (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 385–436). MIT Press. (PMID: 10.7551/mitpress/4107.003.0012)
Brooks, N., Pogue, A., & Barner, D. (2011). Piecing together numerical language: Children’s use of default units in early counting and quantification. Developmental Science, 14(1), 44–57. (PMID: 2115908710.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00954.x)
Burr, D., & Ross, J. (2008). A visual sense of number. Current Biology, 18(6), 425–428. (PMID: 1834250710.1016/j.cub.2008.02.052)
Carter, A. A., & Kaiser, D. (2024). An object numbering task reveals an underestimation of complexity for typically structured scenes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02577-2. (PMID: 10.3758/s13423-024-02577-2)
Ciccione, L., & Dehaene, S. (2020). Grouping mechanisms in numerosity perception. Open Mind, 4, 102–118. (PMID: 34485793841219110.1162/opmi_a_00037)
Chen, Z. (2012). Object-based attention: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(5), 784–802. (PMID: 10.3758/s13414-012-0322-z)
Chou, W. L., & Yeh, S. L. (2018). Dissociating location-based and object-based cue validity effects in object-based attention. Vision Research, 143, 34–41. (PMID: 2927320510.1016/j.visres.2017.11.008)
Clarke, S., & Beck, J. (2021). The number sense represents (rational) numbers. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 44, Article e178. (PMID: 3384351010.1017/S0140525X21000571)
Cordes, S., Gelman, R., Gallistel, C. R., & Whalen, J. (2001). Variability signatures distinguish verbal from nonverbal counting for both large and small numbers. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(4), 698–707. (PMID: 10.3758/BF03196206)
DeWind, N. K., Bonner, M. F., & Brannon, E. M. (2020). Similarly oriented objects appear more numerous. Journal of Vision, 20(4), 4–4. (PMID: 32271896740581510.1167/jov.20.4.4)
Egly, R., Driver, J., & Rafal, R. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(2), 161. (PMID: 801461110.1037/0096-3445.123.2.161)
Franconeri, S. L., Bemis, D. K., & Alvarez, G. A. (2009). Number estimation relies on a set of segmented objects. Cognition, 113(1), 1–13. (PMID: 1964781710.1016/j.cognition.2009.07.002)
Gebuis, T., Kadosh, R. C., & Gevers, W. (2016). Sensory-integration system rather than approximate number system underlies numerosity processing: A critical review. Acta Psychologica, 171, 17–35. (PMID: 2764014010.1016/j.actpsy.2016.09.003)
Gebuis, T., & Reynvoet, B. (2012). The interplay between nonsymbolic number and its continuous visual properties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), Article 642. (PMID: 2208211510.1037/a0026218)
Grossberg, S., & Mingolla, E. (1987). The role of illusory contours in visual segmentation. In S. Petry & G. E. Meyer (Eds.), The perception of illusory contours (pp. 116–125). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4760-9_12.
Guan, C., & Firestone, C. (2020). Seeing what’s possible: Disconnected visual parts are confused for their potential wholes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(3), Article 590. (PMID: 3158906610.1037/xge0000658)
Hafri, A., Bonner, M. F., Landau, B., & Firestone, C. (2024). A phone in a basket looks like a knife in a cup: Role-filler independence in visual processing. Open Mind, 8, 766–794. (PMID: 389575071121906710.1162/opmi_a_00146)
Hafri, A., & Firestone, C. (2021). The perception of relations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(6), 475–492. (PMID: 3381277010.1016/j.tics.2021.01.006)
Hafri, A., Green, E. J., & Firestone, C. (2023). Compositionality in visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, Article E277. (PMID: 3776660410.1017/S0140525X23001838)
Hafri, A., & Papeo, L. (2025). The past, present, and future of relation perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 51(5), 543–546. (PMID: 4024497310.1037/xhp0001310)
Halberda, J., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Developmental change in the acuity of the “number sense”: The Approximate Number System in 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds and adults. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1457. (PMID: 1879307610.1037/a0012682)
He, L., Zhang, J., Zhou, T., & Chen, L. (2009). Connectedness affects dot numerosity judgment: Implications for configural processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 509–517. (PMID: 10.3758/PBR.16.3.509)
Hespos, S. J., & Spelke, E. S. (2004). Conceptual precursors to language. Nature, 430(6998), 453–456. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02634. (PMID: 10.1038/nature02634152697691415221)
Izard, V., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., & Dehaene, S. (2008). Distinct cerebral pathways for object identity and number in human infants. PLoS Biology, 6(2), Article e11. (PMID: 18254657222543810.1371/journal.pbio.0060011)
Izard, V., Streri, A., & Spelke, E. S. (2014). Toward exact number: Young children use one-to-one correspondence to measure set identity but not numerical equality. Cognitive Psychology, 72, 27–53. (PMID: 24680885406174210.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.004)
Johannes, K., Wilson, C., & Landau, B. (2016). The importance of lexical verbs in the acquisition of spatial prepositions: The case of in and on. Cognition, 157(2016), 174–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.022. (PMID: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.02227643981)
Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 175–219. (PMID: 158217210.1016/0010-0285(92)90007-O)
Kirjakovski, A., & Matsumoto, E. (2016). Numerosity underestimation in sets with illusory contours. Vision Research, 122, 34–42. (PMID: 2703856110.1016/j.visres.2016.03.005)
Landau, B., Davis, E. E., Gürcanlı, Ö., & Wilson, C. (2023). How does English encode ‘tight’ vs. ‘loose-fit’ motion events? It’s complicated. Language Learning and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2023.2196531. (PMID: 10.1080/15475441.2023.2196531)
Landau, B., Johannes, K., Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A. (2017). Containment and support: Core and complexity in spatial language learning. Cognitive Science, 41, 748–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12389. (PMID: 10.1111/cogs.1238927323000)
Lei, Q., & Reeves, A. (2023). Numerosity depends on normalized contrast energy: Review and square-root law model. Vision Research, 211, Article 108280. (PMID: 3741890010.1016/j.visres.2023.108280)
Leibovich, T., Katzin, N., Harel, M., & Henik, A. (2017). From “sense of number” to “sense of magnitude”: The role of continuous magnitudes in numerical cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16000960. (PMID: 10.1017/S0140525X1600096029342648)
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge University Press. (PMID: 10.1017/CBO9780511613609)
Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390(6657), 279–281. (PMID: 938437810.1038/36846)
Myers, C., Firestone, C., & Halberda, J. (2025). Number adaptation survives spatial displacement. Current Biology, 35(23), 5923–5929.e3.
Norbury, H. M., Waxman, S. R., & Song, H. J. (2008). Tight and loose are not created equal: An asymmetry underlying the representation of fit in English-and Korean-speakers. Cognition, 109(3), 316–325. (PMID: 19010464261770810.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.019)
Odic, D., Libertus, M. E., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2013a). Developmental change in the acuity of approximate number and area representations. Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 1103–1112. (PMID: 2288939410.1037/a0029472)
Odic, D., Pietroski, P., Hunter, T., Lidz, J., & Halberda, J. (2013b). Young children’s understanding of “more” and discrimination of number and surface area. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(2), 451. (PMID: 22686847)
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006)
Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Storm, R. W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3, 179–197. (PMID: 315367110.1163/156856888X00122)
Qu, C., Clarke, S., Luzzi, F., & Brannon, E. (2024). Rational number representation by the approximate number system. Cognition, 250, Article 105839. (PMID: 3887056210.1016/j.cognition.2024.105839)
Qu, C., DeWind, N. K., & Brannon, E. M. (2022). Increasing entropy reduces perceived numerosity throughout the lifespan. Cognition, 225, Article 105096. (PMID: 3531667010.1016/j.cognition.2022.105096)
Sanford, E. M., Topaz, C. M., & Halberda, J. (2023). Modeling magnitude discrimination: Effects of internal precision and attentional weighting of feature dimensions. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4066212 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4066212.
Scholl, B. J. (2001). Objects and attention: The state of the art. Cognition, 80(1/2), 1–46. (PMID: 1124583810.1016/S0010-0277(00)00152-9)
Vickery, T. J., & Chun, M. M. (2010). Object-based warping: An illusory distortion of space within objects. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1759–1764. (PMID: 2106834210.1177/0956797610388046)
Wagemans, J., Elder, J. H., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S. E., Peterson, M. A., Singh, M., & von der Heydt, R. (2012). A century of gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure–ground organization. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), Article 1172. (PMID: 22845751348214410.1037/a0029333)
Xu, F., & Spelke, E. S. (2000). Large number discrimination in 6-month-old infants. Cognition, 74(1), B1–B11. (PMID: 1059431210.1016/S0010-0277(99)00066-9)
van Buren, B., Gao, T., & Scholl, B. J. (2017). What are the underlying units of perceived animacy? Chasing detection is intrinsically object-based. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(5), 1604–1610. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1229-4. (PMID: 10.3758/s13423-017-1229-4)
Yousif, S. R. (2021). Numerosity, area-osity, object-osity? Oh my. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 44, Article e203. (PMID: 3490788610.1017/S0140525X21001084)
Yousif, S. R., Clarke, S., & Brannon, E. M. (2024). Number adaptation: A critical look. Cognition, 249, Article 105813. (PMID: 3882068710.1016/j.cognition.2024.105813)
Zhao, J., & Yu, R. Q. (2016). Statistical regularities reduce perceived numerosity. Cognition, 146, 217–222. (PMID: 2645170110.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.018)
Barth, H., Kanwisher, N., & Spelke, E. (2003). The construction of large number representations in adults. Cognition, 86(3), 201–221. (PMID: 1248573810.1016/S0010-0277(02)00178-6)
Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. F. Garrett, L. Nadel, & M. A. Peterson (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 385–436). MIT Press. (PMID: 10.7551/mitpress/4107.003.0012)
Brooks, N., Pogue, A., & Barner, D. (2011). Piecing together numerical language: Children’s use of default units in early counting and quantification. Developmental Science, 14(1), 44–57. (PMID: 2115908710.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00954.x)
Burr, D., & Ross, J. (2008). A visual sense of number. Current Biology, 18(6), 425–428. (PMID: 1834250710.1016/j.cub.2008.02.052)
Carter, A. A., & Kaiser, D. (2024). An object numbering task reveals an underestimation of complexity for typically structured scenes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02577-2. (PMID: 10.3758/s13423-024-02577-2)
Ciccione, L., & Dehaene, S. (2020). Grouping mechanisms in numerosity perception. Open Mind, 4, 102–118. (PMID: 34485793841219110.1162/opmi_a_00037)
Chen, Z. (2012). Object-based attention: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(5), 784–802. (PMID: 10.3758/s13414-012-0322-z)
Chou, W. L., & Yeh, S. L. (2018). Dissociating location-based and object-based cue validity effects in object-based attention. Vision Research, 143, 34–41. (PMID: 2927320510.1016/j.visres.2017.11.008)
Clarke, S., & Beck, J. (2021). The number sense represents (rational) numbers. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 44, Article e178. (PMID: 3384351010.1017/S0140525X21000571)
Cordes, S., Gelman, R., Gallistel, C. R., & Whalen, J. (2001). Variability signatures distinguish verbal from nonverbal counting for both large and small numbers. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(4), 698–707. (PMID: 10.3758/BF03196206)
DeWind, N. K., Bonner, M. F., & Brannon, E. M. (2020). Similarly oriented objects appear more numerous. Journal of Vision, 20(4), 4–4. (PMID: 32271896740581510.1167/jov.20.4.4)
Egly, R., Driver, J., & Rafal, R. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(2), 161. (PMID: 801461110.1037/0096-3445.123.2.161)
Franconeri, S. L., Bemis, D. K., & Alvarez, G. A. (2009). Number estimation relies on a set of segmented objects. Cognition, 113(1), 1–13. (PMID: 1964781710.1016/j.cognition.2009.07.002)
Gebuis, T., Kadosh, R. C., & Gevers, W. (2016). Sensory-integration system rather than approximate number system underlies numerosity processing: A critical review. Acta Psychologica, 171, 17–35. (PMID: 2764014010.1016/j.actpsy.2016.09.003)
Gebuis, T., & Reynvoet, B. (2012). The interplay between nonsymbolic number and its continuous visual properties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), Article 642. (PMID: 2208211510.1037/a0026218)
Grossberg, S., & Mingolla, E. (1987). The role of illusory contours in visual segmentation. In S. Petry & G. E. Meyer (Eds.), The perception of illusory contours (pp. 116–125). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4760-9_12.
Guan, C., & Firestone, C. (2020). Seeing what’s possible: Disconnected visual parts are confused for their potential wholes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(3), Article 590. (PMID: 3158906610.1037/xge0000658)
Hafri, A., Bonner, M. F., Landau, B., & Firestone, C. (2024). A phone in a basket looks like a knife in a cup: Role-filler independence in visual processing. Open Mind, 8, 766–794. (PMID: 389575071121906710.1162/opmi_a_00146)
Hafri, A., & Firestone, C. (2021). The perception of relations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(6), 475–492. (PMID: 3381277010.1016/j.tics.2021.01.006)
Hafri, A., Green, E. J., & Firestone, C. (2023). Compositionality in visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, Article E277. (PMID: 3776660410.1017/S0140525X23001838)
Hafri, A., & Papeo, L. (2025). The past, present, and future of relation perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 51(5), 543–546. (PMID: 4024497310.1037/xhp0001310)
Halberda, J., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Developmental change in the acuity of the “number sense”: The Approximate Number System in 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds and adults. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1457. (PMID: 1879307610.1037/a0012682)
He, L., Zhang, J., Zhou, T., & Chen, L. (2009). Connectedness affects dot numerosity judgment: Implications for configural processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 509–517. (PMID: 10.3758/PBR.16.3.509)
Hespos, S. J., & Spelke, E. S. (2004). Conceptual precursors to language. Nature, 430(6998), 453–456. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02634. (PMID: 10.1038/nature02634152697691415221)
Izard, V., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., & Dehaene, S. (2008). Distinct cerebral pathways for object identity and number in human infants. PLoS Biology, 6(2), Article e11. (PMID: 18254657222543810.1371/journal.pbio.0060011)
Izard, V., Streri, A., & Spelke, E. S. (2014). Toward exact number: Young children use one-to-one correspondence to measure set identity but not numerical equality. Cognitive Psychology, 72, 27–53. (PMID: 24680885406174210.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.004)
Johannes, K., Wilson, C., & Landau, B. (2016). The importance of lexical verbs in the acquisition of spatial prepositions: The case of in and on. Cognition, 157(2016), 174–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.022. (PMID: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.02227643981)
Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 175–219. (PMID: 158217210.1016/0010-0285(92)90007-O)
Kirjakovski, A., & Matsumoto, E. (2016). Numerosity underestimation in sets with illusory contours. Vision Research, 122, 34–42. (PMID: 2703856110.1016/j.visres.2016.03.005)
Landau, B., Davis, E. E., Gürcanlı, Ö., & Wilson, C. (2023). How does English encode ‘tight’ vs. ‘loose-fit’ motion events? It’s complicated. Language Learning and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2023.2196531. (PMID: 10.1080/15475441.2023.2196531)
Landau, B., Johannes, K., Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A. (2017). Containment and support: Core and complexity in spatial language learning. Cognitive Science, 41, 748–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12389. (PMID: 10.1111/cogs.1238927323000)
Lei, Q., & Reeves, A. (2023). Numerosity depends on normalized contrast energy: Review and square-root law model. Vision Research, 211, Article 108280. (PMID: 3741890010.1016/j.visres.2023.108280)
Leibovich, T., Katzin, N., Harel, M., & Henik, A. (2017). From “sense of number” to “sense of magnitude”: The role of continuous magnitudes in numerical cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16000960. (PMID: 10.1017/S0140525X1600096029342648)
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge University Press. (PMID: 10.1017/CBO9780511613609)
Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390(6657), 279–281. (PMID: 938437810.1038/36846)
Myers, C., Firestone, C., & Halberda, J. (2025). Number adaptation survives spatial displacement. Current Biology, 35(23), 5923–5929.e3.
Norbury, H. M., Waxman, S. R., & Song, H. J. (2008). Tight and loose are not created equal: An asymmetry underlying the representation of fit in English-and Korean-speakers. Cognition, 109(3), 316–325. (PMID: 19010464261770810.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.019)
Odic, D., Libertus, M. E., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2013a). Developmental change in the acuity of approximate number and area representations. Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 1103–1112. (PMID: 2288939410.1037/a0029472)
Odic, D., Pietroski, P., Hunter, T., Lidz, J., & Halberda, J. (2013b). Young children’s understanding of “more” and discrimination of number and surface area. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(2), 451. (PMID: 22686847)
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006)
Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Storm, R. W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3, 179–197. (PMID: 315367110.1163/156856888X00122)
Qu, C., Clarke, S., Luzzi, F., & Brannon, E. (2024). Rational number representation by the approximate number system. Cognition, 250, Article 105839. (PMID: 3887056210.1016/j.cognition.2024.105839)
Qu, C., DeWind, N. K., & Brannon, E. M. (2022). Increasing entropy reduces perceived numerosity throughout the lifespan. Cognition, 225, Article 105096. (PMID: 3531667010.1016/j.cognition.2022.105096)
Sanford, E. M., Topaz, C. M., & Halberda, J. (2023). Modeling magnitude discrimination: Effects of internal precision and attentional weighting of feature dimensions. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4066212 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4066212.
Scholl, B. J. (2001). Objects and attention: The state of the art. Cognition, 80(1/2), 1–46. (PMID: 1124583810.1016/S0010-0277(00)00152-9)
Vickery, T. J., & Chun, M. M. (2010). Object-based warping: An illusory distortion of space within objects. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1759–1764. (PMID: 2106834210.1177/0956797610388046)
Wagemans, J., Elder, J. H., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S. E., Peterson, M. A., Singh, M., & von der Heydt, R. (2012). A century of gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure–ground organization. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), Article 1172. (PMID: 22845751348214410.1037/a0029333)
Xu, F., & Spelke, E. S. (2000). Large number discrimination in 6-month-old infants. Cognition, 74(1), B1–B11. (PMID: 1059431210.1016/S0010-0277(99)00066-9)
van Buren, B., Gao, T., & Scholl, B. J. (2017). What are the underlying units of perceived animacy? Chasing detection is intrinsically object-based. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(5), 1604–1610. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1229-4. (PMID: 10.3758/s13423-017-1229-4)
Yousif, S. R. (2021). Numerosity, area-osity, object-osity? Oh my. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 44, Article e203. (PMID: 3490788610.1017/S0140525X21001084)
Yousif, S. R., Clarke, S., & Brannon, E. M. (2024). Number adaptation: A critical look. Cognition, 249, Article 105813. (PMID: 3882068710.1016/j.cognition.2024.105813)
Zhao, J., & Yu, R. Q. (2016). Statistical regularities reduce perceived numerosity. Cognition, 146, 217–222. (PMID: 2645170110.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.018)
Grant Information:
BCS-2021053 Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences; SMA-2105228 SBE Office of Multidisciplinary Activities; 32400854 National Natural Science Foundation of China
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: ANS; Approximate number system; Perception; Possibility; Shape; Visual relations
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20260108 Date Completed: 20260108 Latest Revision: 20260304
Update Code:
20260304
PubMed Central ID:
PMC12783196
DOI:
10.3758/s13414-025-03158-8
PMID:
41507558
Database:
MEDLINE
*Further Information*
*In a single glance at a collection of objects, we can appreciate their numerosity. But what are the "objects" over which this number sense operates? Most work in this domain has implicitly assumed that we estimate the number of discrete, bounded individuals actually present in the visual field. However, in many instances we can construe such individuals as potential parts of composite objects that they can create-as when we assemble furniture or complete a jigsaw puzzle. Here, we demonstrate that visual numerosity estimation is sensitive to such part-whole relations, such that the number of items in a display is underestimated when it contains spatially separated but easily combinable objects. Participants saw brief displays containing noncontiguous "puzzle-piece" stimuli, and reported which display had more pieces. Crucially, most of the pieces appeared in pairs that either could or could not efficiently combine into new objects. In four experiments, displays with combinable pieces were judged as less numerous than displays with noncombinable pieces-as if the mind treated two geometrically compatible pieces as being the single whole object they could create. These effects went beyond various low-level factors, and they persisted even when participants were explicitly trained to treat individual pieces as the units that should be counted. Thus, despite the many ways that sets of objects may be construed for the purposes of counting, visual perception automatically takes into account the ways that object parts may combine into wholes when extracting numerosity from visual displays.
(© 2026. The Author(s).)*
*Declarations. Ethics approval: These experiments were approved by the IRB of JHU. Consent to participate: All participants included in the present analyses provided their full, informed consent to participate in the study. Consent for publication: Participant data was anonymized for publication, with no identifying information linked to any individual participant. Conflicts of interest/Competing interests: NA*