New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

How Perceptive Are You? Not Everyone Is the Same

The ability to quickly tally a number of items can predict performance on other visual tasks

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Our abilities to see things that appear fleetingly or in cluttered environments or outside our focus of attention are all determined by a single perceptual capacity trait that varies among people, a new study suggests. Researchers say these findings could one day help scientifically predict an individual's performance in jobs that rely on strong observational skills.

Psychologists Joshua Eayrs and Nilli Lavie of University College London tested participants on a range of visual tasks. One measured how well people could estimate the number of objects appearing on a screen for a tenth of a second—a capacity known as subitizing. Others measured the ability to notice small differences between two real-world scenes; to detect a change at a screen's edge while focusing on the center; and to track multiple moving dots among static ones.

People who excelled at subitizing also tended to perform better on the other tasks, the team reported online in March in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. “This is the first study to establish a perceptual capacity trait,” Lavie says. “It's an important ability, which [determines] how much information you can process when there's a lot of it around you.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Theoretically, performance on any task that relies on this perceptual ability (not just those studied) could predict performance on any other. Lavie's team also demonstrated that perceptual capacity is distinct from general cognitive ability and ruled out other possible factors such as varying levels of motivation.

The findings are interesting and plausible—but they are preliminary and need to be independently replicated in larger samples, says psychologist Matt Meier of Western Carolina University, who was not involved in the study.

The scientists say their work could help develop tests to screen potential employees for safety-critical jobs in demanding visual environments, such as air-traffic controllers, security guards or military personnel. Lavie says her team is already investigating whether measuring perceptual capacity can predict actual job performance in such roles.

Simon Makin is a freelance science journalist based in the U.K. His work has appeared in New Scientist, the Economist, Scientific American and Nature, among others. He covers the life sciences and specializes in neuroscience, psychology and mental health. Follow Makin on X (formerly Twitter) @SimonMakin

More by Simon Makin
Scientific American Magazine Vol 319 Issue 1This article was published with the title “Eagle Eye” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 319 No. 1 (), p. 16
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0718-16

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe