Abstract
In six experiments, subjects judged the sizes of squares that were presented visually and/or haptically, in unimodal or bimodal conditions. We were interested in which mode most affected size judgments in the bimodal condition when the squares presented to each mode actually differed in size. Three factors varied: whether haptic exploration was passive or active, whether the choice set from which the subjects selected their responses was visual or haptic, and whether cutaneous information was provided in addition to kinesthetic information. To match the task for each mode, visual presentations consisted of a cursor that moved along a square pathway to correspond to the haptic experience of successive segments revealed during exploration. We found that the visual influence on size judgments was greater than the influence of haptics when the haptic experience involved only kinesthesis, passive movement, and a visual choice set. However, when cutaneous input was added to kinesthetic information, size judgments were most influenced by the haptic mode. The results support hypotheses of sensory integration, rather than capture of one sense by the other.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bacon, J. H., & Shaw, L. (1982). Effect of conflict awareness on visual dominance. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 54, 263–267.
Easton, R. D., & Moran, P. W. (1978). A quantitative confirmation of visual capture of curvature. Journal of General Psychology, 98, 105–112.
Ernst, M. O., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2004). Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 162–169.
Fishkin, S. M., Pishkin, V., & Stahl, M. L. (1975). Factors involved in visual capture. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 40, 427–434.
Hadjikhani, N., & Roland, P. E. (1998). Cross-modal transfer of information between the tactile and the visual representations in the human brain: A positron emission tomographic study. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 1072–1084.
Helbig, H. B., & Ernst, M. O. (2007). Knowledge about a common source can promote visual-haptic integration. Perception, 36, 1523–1533.
Hershberger, W. A., & Misceo, G. F. (1996). Touch dominates haptic estimates of discordant visual-haptic size. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 1124–1132.
Hollins, M., & Goble, A. K. (1988). Perception of the length of voluntary movements. Somatosensory Research, 5, 335–348.
Jansson, G., Billberger, K., Petrie, H., Colwell, C., Kornbrot, D., Fänger, J., et al. (1999). Haptic virtual environments for blind people: Exploratory experiments with two devices. International Journal of Virtual Reality, 4, 10–20.
Kirkpatrick, A. E., & Douglas, S. A. (2002, March). Application-based evaluation of haptic interfaces. In Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (pp. 32–39). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Klein, R. (1966). A developmental study of perception under conditions of conflicting sensory cues. Dissertation Abstracts, 27, 2162B-2163B.
Lakatos, S., & Marks, L. E. (1999). Haptic form perception: Relative salience of local and global features. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 895–908.
Loomis, J. M., Klatzky, R. L., & Lederman, S. J. (1991). Similarity in tactual and visual picture recognition with limited field of view. Perception, 20, 167–177.
McDonnell, P. M., & Duffett, J. (1972). Vision and touch: A reconsideration of conflict between the two senses. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 26, 171–180.
Motter, B. C. (1993). Focal attention produces spatially selective processing in visual cortical areas V1, V2, and V4 in the presence of competing stimuli. Journal of Neurophysiology, 70, 909–919.
Phillips, F., Egan, E. J. L., & Perry, B. N. (2009). Perceptual equivalence between vision and touch is complexity dependent. Acta Psychologica, 132, 259–266.
Richardson, B. L., Symmons, M., & Accardi, R. (2000). The TDS: A new device for comparing active and passive-guided touch. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, 8, 414–417.
Richardson, B. L., Symmons, M., & Wuillemin, D. B. (2006). Passive exploration and static skin might be more useful than previously assumed. In A. Khedder (Ed.), Proceedings of Eurohaptics 2006 (pp. 57–59). Paris: Académie des Technologies.
Richardson, B. L., Symmons, M., Wuillemin, D. B., & Van Doorn, G. H. (2005, March). Looking through a fingertip. Poster presented at the World Haptics Conference, Pisa, Italy.
Rock, I., & Victor, J. (1964). Vision and touch: An experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science, 143, 594–596.
Rosch, E. H., Mervis, C. B., Grey, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.
Soto-Faraco, S., & Deco, G. (2009). Multisensory contributions to the perception of vibrotactile events. Behavioural Brain Research, 196, 145–154.
Soto-Faraco, S., Spence, C., & Kingstone, A. (2004). Cross-modal dynamic capture: Congruency effects in the perception of motion across sensory modalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 330–345.
Spence, C. (2002). Multisensory attention and tactile informationprocessing. Behavioural Brain Research, 135, 57–64.
Spence, C., & Driver, J. (1997). On measuring selective attention to an expected sensory modality. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 389–403.
Spence, C., & Walton, M. (2005). On the inability to ignore touch when responding to vision in the crossmodal congruency task. Acta Psychologica, 118, 47–70.
Symmons, M., Richardson, B. L., & Wuillemin, D. B. (2004). Active versus passive touch: Superiority depends more on the task than the mode. In S. Ballesterios & M. Heller (Eds.), Touch blindness and neuroscience (pp. 179–185). Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia.
Welch, R. B., & Warren, D. H. (1980). Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 638–667.
Welch, R. B., Widawski, M. H., Harrington, J., & Warren, D. H. (1979). An examination of the relationship between visual capture and prism adaptation. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 126–132.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Van Doorn, G.H., Richardson, B.L., Wuillemin, D.B. et al. Visual and haptic influence on perception of stimulus size. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 72, 813–822 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.3.813
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.3.813