1 120027403

The Perception of Quantity

Abstract. The experiment was conducted with six females in which we

wanted to find out if there a difference in the reaction time and the correct

responses when shown different number of dots on their right and left

visual fields. Our objective was to replicate the Jackson and Coney

experiment and prove the left visual hemisphere subitizes over the right

visual hemisphere. Our hypothesis was that there would be no relationship

between the left and right visual hemispheres and that they would both

be identical in reaction time and performance. The results we obtained is

the right visual hemisphere does in fact have a faster reaction time and it

proved the right hemisphere also had a higher percentage of correctness.

The results went to prove our hypothesis wrong.

Introduction. Researchers have been debating on which visual field

produces the term Kauffman called subitizing. Subitizing is a term

meaning to have a faster and more accurate estimation. It seems to be

only accurate and limited to four, five, and six items at a time though. Our

experiment is aimed to replicate that of Jackson and Coney (2004).

The purpose of Jackson and Coneys experiment was to critique

Butterworths experiment which was conducted five years earlier. They

believed Butterworths experiment was flawed based on there were not

enough participants and the stimulus configurations were not randomised.

2 120027403

Butterworth (1999) proposed the idea that An innate number module

exists in the left inferior parietal lobe of the brain. Butterworth was

therefore suggesting there is an advantage to the right visual field in

subitizing. Jackson and Coney (2004) conducted their own experiment and

came across astonishing results compared to Butterworth. Compared to

Butterworths proposal, Jackson and Coney found that both the response-

time and the error-data showed the left visual field had the advantage

over the right visual field in subitizing.

Therefore, we see there are two contradicting theories to which side of the

brain subitizes. One theory, Butterworths theory, suggests the right visual

field subitizes over the left visual field, and the other theory proposed by

Jackson and Coney suggests the left visual field subitizes over the right

visual field. Our objective in this experiment is to replicate the Jackson

and Coney experiment to prove the left visual field does in fact subitize

over the right visual field. Our hypothesis is that the reaction time and

percentage correctness will not differ any in the right or left visual fields.

Method.

Design. We conducted an observational experiment to see which

visual field subitizes faster for our six participants. We set the experiment

up to where the participants sat at a computer screen and looked at a

fixated cross. A group of either three, four, or five dots would then

randomly appear in either their left or right visual field where they were to
3 120027403

record the number of dots they saw. Only the four dot answers are

recorded though. Ten practice trials were ran but not recorded.

Participants. This experiment has a total of six participants who

were all female. Each participant completed 30 trials (with ten practice

trials that were not recorded) and was instructed to estimate the number

of black dots shown with accuracy rather than speed.

Apparatus. Participants were placed in front of a computer where

they were shown black dots on a white background which was displayed

on the computer screen. The participants always fixated on the stimulus

which was a central cross. The black dots appeared on the left or the right

of the computer screen. These black dots had a 50% chance of showing

up on either the right or the left side of the screen. Out of the thirty trials

conducted, ten trials had three items, ten trials had four items, and ten

trials had five items. Every trial was presented in a randomised order. The

location of N items was determined by randomly filling N slots of an

imaginary 4X4 grid. None of the items were allowed to occupy adjacent

locations in the grid.

Procedure. Half of the participants were instructed to respond to the

trials with their right hand while the other half was instructed to respond

with their left hand. Ten practice trials were conducted which were not
4 120027403

recorded in the data. The participants were shown a blank screen for

1000ms and then were shown the fixation cross for another 1000ms. The

items were displayed for 150ms followed by a blank screen until a

response was given and then the process was repeated. If an error was

made during any of the trials an auditory tone occurred. The reaction time

and correct/incorrect answers were recorded for each trial. Only the data

from the four item trials were analysed. The left handed participants were

not analysed in the experiment.

Results. Our results were that this experiment was a within subject

experiment. The independent variable was the visual field. The dependent

variables were the reaction time and performance correctness. The

results were the mean for the paired sample test of the left and right

reaction times were -30.22 with a standard deviation of 10.8. The mean

for the left visual field reaction time was 844.57 with a standard deviation

of 5.91. The mean for the right visual field was 874.79 with a standard

deviation of 7.37. The t-score was -6.256 which proved to be significant.

The standardised format would be t (4) = -6.256, p>.050.

The mean for the paired sample test of the left and right percentage

correct was -2.0 with a standard deviation of 25.88. The mean for the left

visual field was 84.0 with a standard deviation of 18.17. The mean for the

right visual field was 86.0 with a standard deviation of 11.40. The t-score

was -0.173 which proved to be significant. The standardised format is t (4)

5 120027403

= -0.173, p>.050. The results also showed that both the reaction time and

the percentage correctness were two tailed hypothesis.

Discussion. The results conclude that there is in fact a significant

negative relationship between the left and right visual fields reaction

times and percentage correctness. The results show the mean reaction

time was significantly higher for the right visual field over the left visual

field and the percentage correctness was also significantly higher for the

right visual field.

These results go against the replication we were attempting to re-create.

Jackson and Coney (2004) showed the left visual field proved to subitize

over the right visual field. Our tests prove the opposite by the right visual

field significantly subitizing over the left visual field. The results go against

our hypothesis as well. We thought there would be no relationship

between the results of the right and left visual field. The expeirement

showed the right visual hemisphere does in fact subitize over the left

visual hemisphere. There are problems with our replication of Jackson and

Coneys experiment though. Having only six participants, but only using

five, is not enough participants to conclude the right visual field subitizes

over the left visual field. If our experiment were to be true it would go

completely against the experiment we were replicating and confirm the

experiment of Butterworth (which we were trying to prove false).

6 120027403

Future work must be done to tests which hemisphere subitizes over the

other hemisphere. As more knowledge and research is conducted on the

intra parietal sulcus researches may be able to conclude which

hemisphere does in fact subitize over the other. If both hemispheres are

both equally good at mathematical calculations then there should be

identical performance and reaction times in both the left and right

hemispheres. Replications of Jackson and Coney and Butterworths

experiments should keep being practiced as well to see if the same or

different results take place.

In conclusion, our experiment showed the right visual hemisphere

subitizes over the left visual hemisphere. The experiment failed to

replicate the findings of Jackson and Coney and in fact proved to be

completely the opposite by showing the right visual field to have a faster

reaction time and to also have a higher percentage of correctness.

Although this experiment failed to prove the findings of Jackson and

Coney, we cannot conclude this experiment to be valid. The number of

participants was too small. Therefore, we need to have more than six

participants (five if you only include the ones we recorded) because six

participants is not enough to judge the population as a whole. In the end

the results proved our hypothesis wrong so therefore we will need to try to

replicate the experiment with more participants to see if we can in fact

prove the left visual hemisphere subitizes over the right visual

hemisphere.
7 120027403

References

Butterworth, B. (1999). The mathematical brain. London: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Jackson, N., & Coney, J. (2004). Right hemisphere superiority for

subitising. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 9(1), 53-
66.