PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15460926

Perceiving object motion using vision and touch.

Abstract

In a previous experiment, we showed that bistable visual object motion was partially disambiguated by tactile input. Here, we investigated this effect further by employing a more potent visuotactile stimulus. Monocular viewing of a tangible wire-frame sphere (TS) rotating about its vertical axis produced bistable alternations of direction. Touching the TS biased simultaneous and subsequent visual perception of motion. Both of these biases were in the direction of the tactile stimulation and, therefore, constituted facilitation or priming, as opposed to interference or adaptation. Although touching the TS biased visual perception, tactile stimulation was not able to override the ambiguous visual percept. This led to periods of sensory conflict, during which visual and tactile motion percepts were incongruent. Visual and tactile inputs can sometimes be fused to form a coherent percept of object motion but, when they are in extreme conflict, can also remain independent.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Thomas W James, Randolph Blake. 2004. Perceiving object motion using vision and touch.. https://doi.org/10.3758/cabn.4.2.201

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Sequence learning under dual-task conditions: alternatives to a resource-based account.

In two experiments with the serial reaction-time task, participants were presented with deterministic or probabilistic sequences under single- or dual-task conditions. Experiment 1 showed that learning of a probabilistic structure was not impaired over a first session by performing a counting task, but that such an interference arose over a second session, when the knowledge was tested under single-task conditions. In contrast, the effects of the secondary task arose earlier for participants exposed to deterministic sequences. This difference between deterministic and probabilistic sequences disappeared in Experiment 2, where the counting task was performed on tones associated to the locations. Comparisons between sessions indicated that the secondary task affected not only the expression but also the acquisition of sequence learning, and that greater interference was observed in those conditions that yielded more explicit knowledge. These results suggest that the effects of a dual task on the measures of implicit sequence learning may be partly due to the intrusion of explicit knowledge and partly due to the disruption of the sequence produced by the inclusion of random events.

Cues↗

Encoding specificity manipulations do affect retrieval from memory.

In a recent article, P.A. Higham (2002) [Strong cues are not necessarily weak: Thomson and Tulving (1970) and the encoding specificity principle revisited. Memory &Cognition, 30, 67-80] proposed a new way to analyze cued recall performance in terms of three separable aspects of memory (retrieval, monitoring, and report bias) by comparing performance under both free-report and forced-report instructions. He used this method to derive estimates of these aspects of memory in an encoding specificity experiment similar to that reported by D.M. Thomson and E. Tulving (1970) [Associative encoding and retrieval: weak and strong cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 255-262]. Under forced-report instructions, the encoding specificity manipulation did not affect performance. Higham concluded that the manipulation affected monitoring and report bias, but not retrieval. I argue that this interpretation of the results is problematic because the Thomson and Tulving paradigm is confounded, and show in three experiments using a more appropriate design that encoding specificity manipulations do affect performance in forced-report cued recall. Because in Higham's framework forced-report performance provides a measure of retrieval that is uncontaminated by monitoring and report bias it is concluded that encoding specificity manipulations do affect retrieval from memory.

Cues↗