Literature DB >> 12361568

Noninformative vision improves haptic spatial perception.

Roger Newport1, Benjamin Rabb, Stephen R Jackson.   

Abstract

Previous studies have attempted to map somatosensory space via haptic matching tasks and have shown that individuals make large and systematic matching errors, the magnitude and angular direction of which vary systematically through the workspace. Based upon such demonstrations, it has been suggested that haptic space is non-Euclidian. This conclusion assumes that spatial perception is modality specific, and it largely ignores the fact that tactile matching tasks involve active, exploratory arm movements. Here we demonstrate that, when individuals match two bar stimuli (i.e., make them parallel) in circumstances favoring extrinsic (visual) coordinates, providing noninformative visual information significantly increases the accuracy of haptic perception. In contrast, when individuals match the same bar stimuli in circumstances favoring the coding of movements in intrinsic (limb-based) coordinates, providing identical noninformative visual information either has no effect or leads to the decreased accuracy of haptic perception. These results are consistent with optimal integration models of sensory integration in which the weighting given to visual and somatosensory signals depends upon the precision of the visual and somatosensory information and provide important evidence for the task-dependent integration of visual and somatosensory signals during the construction of a representation of peripersonal space.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12361568     DOI: 10.1016/s0960-9822(02)01178-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  27 in total

1.  Multisensory integration mechanisms in haptic space perception.

Authors:  Sander Zuidhoek; Albertine Visser; Merle E Bredero; Albert Postma
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-06-10       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Task requirements influence sensory integration during grasping in humans.

Authors:  Daniel Säfström; Benoni B Edin
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.460

3.  The effect of temporal delay and spatial differences on cross-modal object recognition.

Authors:  Andrew T Woods; Sile O'Modhrain; Fiona N Newell
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.282

4.  Integration of anatomical and external response mappings explains crossing effects in tactile localization: A probabilistic modeling approach.

Authors:  Stephanie Badde; Tobias Heed; Brigitte Röder
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-04

5.  Haptic shape discrimination in humans: insight into haptic frames of reference.

Authors:  Julien Voisin; Guillaume Michaud; C Elaine Chapman
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-06-14       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Hand orientation is insufficiently compensated for in haptic spatial perception.

Authors:  Astrid M L Kappers; Roderik F Viergever
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Haptic spatial matching in near peripersonal space.

Authors:  Amanda L Kaas; Hanneke I van Mier
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-11-23       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Memory for curvature of objects: haptic touch vs. vision.

Authors:  Miriam Ittyerah; Lawrence E Marks
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  2007-11

9.  Superior spatial touch: improved haptic orientation processing in deaf individuals.

Authors:  Rick van Dijk; Astrid M L Kappers; Albert Postma
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-07-30       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Illusory rotation in the haptic perception of a moving bar.

Authors:  Astrid M L Kappers; Wouter M Bergmann Tiest
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-09-14       Impact factor: 1.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.