Literature DB >> 21424255

Object and spatial imagery dimensions in visuo-haptic representations.

Simon Lacey1, Jonathan B Lin, K Sathian.   

Abstract

Visual imagery comprises object and spatial dimensions. Both types of imagery encode shape but a key difference is that object imagers are more likely to encode surface properties than spatial imagers. Since visual and haptic object representations share many characteristics, we investigated whether haptic and multisensory representations also share an object-spatial continuum. Experiment 1 involved two tasks in both visual and haptic within-modal conditions, one requiring discrimination of shape across changes in texture, the other discrimination of texture across changes in shape. In both modalities, spatial imagers could ignore changes in texture but not shape, whereas object imagers could ignore changes in shape but not texture. Experiment 2 re-analyzed a cross-modal version of the shape discrimination task from an earlier study. We found that spatial imagers could discriminate shape across changes in texture but object imagers could not and that the more one preferred object imagery, the more texture changes impaired discrimination. These findings are the first evidence that object and spatial dimensions of imagery can be observed in haptic and multisensory representations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21424255      PMCID: PMC3121910          DOI: 10.1007/s00221-011-2623-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  11 in total

1.  Viewpoint dependence in visual and haptic object recognition.

Authors:  F N Newell; M O Ernst; B S Tjan; H H Bülthoff
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2001-01

2.  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

3.  Spatial versus object visualizers: a new characterization of visual cognitive style.

Authors:  Maria Kozhevnikov; Stephen Kosslyn; Jennifer Shephard
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2005-06

4.  Mental representation in visual/haptic crossmodal memory: evidence from interference effects.

Authors:  Simon Lacey; Christine Campbell
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.143

5.  Trade-off in object versus spatial visualization abilities: restriction in the development of visual-processing resources.

Authors:  Maria Kozhevnikov; Olesya Blazhenkova; Michael Becker
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-02

6.  Concepts are not represented by conscious imagery.

Authors:  Diane Pecher; Saskia van Dantzig; Hendrik N J Schifferstein
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-10

Review 7.  Multisensory object representation: insights from studies of vision and touch.

Authors:  Simon Lacey; K Sathian
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.453

8.  Perceptual learning of view-independence in visuo-haptic object representations.

Authors:  Simon Lacey; Marisa Pappas; Alexandra Kreps; Kevin Lee; K Sathian
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-05-31       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 9.  A putative model of multisensory object representation.

Authors:  Simon Lacey; Noa Tal; Amir Amedi; K Sathian
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2009-03-28       Impact factor: 3.020

10.  Cross-modal object recognition is viewpoint-independent.

Authors:  Simon Lacey; Andrew Peters; K Sathian
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2007-09-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  8 in total

1.  Multisensory integration: from fundamental principles to translational research.

Authors:  Georg F Meyer; Uta Noppeney
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Enhanced verbal abilities in the congenitally blind.

Authors:  Valeria Occelli; Simon Lacey; Careese Stephens; Lotfi B Merabet; K Sathian
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  CROSSMODAL AND MULTISENSORY INTERACTIONS BETWEEN VISION AND TOUCH.

Authors:  Simon Lacey; K Sathian
Journal:  Scholarpedia J       Date:  2015

4.  Neural Basis of the Sound-Symbolic Crossmodal Correspondence Between Auditory Pseudowords and Visual Shapes.

Authors:  Kelly McCormick; Simon Lacey; Randall Stilla; Lynne C Nygaard; K Sathian
Journal:  Multisens Res       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 2.352

5.  Spatial imagery in haptic shape perception.

Authors:  Simon Lacey; Randall Stilla; Karthik Sreenivasan; Gopikrishna Deshpande; K Sathian
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 3.139

6.  Haptic Object Recognition is View-Independent in Early Blind but not Sighted People.

Authors:  Valeria Occelli; Simon Lacey; Careese Stephens; Thomas John; K Sathian
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 1.490

7.  Loss of form vision impairs spatial imagery.

Authors:  Valeria Occelli; Jonathan B Lin; Simon Lacey; K Sathian
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 8.  Visuo-haptic multisensory object recognition, categorization, and representation.

Authors:  Simon Lacey; K Sathian
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-07-17
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.