Abstract
In this brief response to commentaries by Ariely (2008) and Chong, Joo, Emmanouil, and Treisman (2008) on our earlier article, we highlight the two key assumptions underlying earlier claims about statistical summary representations of object size and argue that existing studies have not met either of them. We note why statistical summary representations of size are different from such representations of motion or orientation, and we emphasize the need for simulations of performance to exclude focused attention explanations for judgments of average size.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ariely, D. (2008). Better than average? When can we say that subsampling of items is better than statistical summary representations? Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 1325–1326.
Chong, S. C., Joo, S. J., Emmanouil, T.-A., & Treisman, A. (2008). Statistical processing: Not so implausible after all. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 1327–1334.
Myczek, K., & Simons, D. J. (2008). Better than average: Alternatives to statistical summary representations for rapid judgments of average size. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 772–788.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Simons, D.J., Myczek, K. Average size perception and the allure of a new mechanism. Perception & Psychophysics 70, 1335–1336 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PP.70.7.1335
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PP.70.7.1335