Literature DB >> 19691944

Perceptual equivalence between vision and touch is complexity dependent.

F Phillips1, E J L Egan, B N Perry.   

Abstract

We experience the shape of objects in our world largely by way of our vision and touch but the availability and integration of information between the senses remains an open question. The research presented in this article examines the effect of stimulus complexity on visual, haptic and crossmodal discrimination. Using sculpted three-dimensional objects whose features vary systematically, we perform a series of three experiments to determine perceptual equivalence as a function of complexity. Two unimodal experiments--vision and touch-only, and one crossmodal experiment investigating the availability of information across the senses, were performed. We find that, for the class of stimuli used, subjects were able to visually discriminate them reliably across the entire range of complexity, while the experiments involving haptic information show a marked decrease in performance as the objects become more complex. Performance in the crossmodal condition appears to be constrained by the limits of the subjects' haptic representation, but the combination of the two sources of information is of some benefit over vision alone when comparing the simpler, low-frequency stimuli. This result shows that there is crossmodal transfer, and therefore perceptual equivalency, but that this transfer is limited by the object's complexity.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19691944     DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.07.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)        ISSN: 0001-6918


  9 in total

1.  Are surface properties integrated into visuohaptic object representations?

Authors:  Simon Lacey; Jenelle Hall; K Sathian
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.386

2.  Solid shape discrimination from vision and haptics: natural objects (Capsicum annuum) and Gibson's "feelies".

Authors:  J Farley Norman; Flip Phillips; Jessica S Holmin; Hideko F Norman; Amanda M Beers; Alexandria M Boswell; Jacob R Cheeseman; Angela G Stethen; Cecilia Ronning
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-08-25       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  The mere exposure effect in the domain of haptics.

Authors:  Martina Jakesch; Claus-Christian Carbon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Perceiving Object Shape from Specular Highlight Deformation, Boundary Contour Deformation, and Active Haptic Manipulation.

Authors:  J Farley Norman; Flip Phillips; Jacob R Cheeseman; Kelsey E Thomason; Cecilia Ronning; Kriti Behari; Kayla Kleinman; Autum B Calloway; Davora Lamirande
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  The Recognition of Solid Object Shape: The Importance of Inhomogeneity.

Authors:  J Farley Norman; Sydney P Wheeler; Lauren E Pedersen; Lindsey M Shain; Jonathan D Kinnard; Joel Lenoir
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2019-08-13

6.  Form and Function in Information for Visual Perception.

Authors:  Joseph S Lappin; Herbert H Bell
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2021-12-23

Review 7.  Roughness perception: A multisensory/crossmodal perspective.

Authors:  Nicola Di Stefano; Charles Spence
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 2.157

8.  The eyes grasp, the hands see: metric category knowledge transfers between vision and touch.

Authors:  Christian Wallraven; Heinrich H Bülthoff; Steffen Waterkamp; Loes van Dam; Nina Gaissert
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-08

9.  Aging and haptic shape discrimination: the effects of variations in size.

Authors:  J Farley Norman; Jessica M Dukes; Tori N Palmore
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-09-07       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.