The influence of facing direction on the haptic identification of two-dimensional raised pictures

Recognition of facial expressions of emotions in tactile drawings by blind children, children with low vision and sighted children

In the context of blindness, studies on the recognition of facial expressions of emotions by touch are essential to define the compensatory touch abilities and to create adapted tools on emotions. This study is the first to examine the effect of visual experience in the recognition of tactile drawings of facial expressions of emotions by children with different visual experiences. To this end, we compared the recognition rates of tactile drawings of emotions between blind children, children with low vision and sighted children aged 6-12 years. Results revealed no effect of visual experience on recognition rates. However, an effect of emotions and an interaction effect between emotions and visual experience were found. Indeed, while all children had a low average recognition rate, the drawings of fear, anger and disgust were particularly poorly recognized. Moreover, sighted children were significantly better at recognizing the drawings of surprise and sadness than the blind children who only showed high recognition rates for joy. The results of this study support the importance of developing emotion tools that can be understood by children with different visual experiences.

Spatial Alignment and Response Hand in Geometric and Motion Illusions

Perception of visual illusions is susceptible to manipulation of their spatial properties. Further, illusions can sometimes affect visually guided actions, especially the movement planning phase. Remarkably, visual properties of objects related to actions, such as affordances, can prime more accurate perceptual judgements. In spite of the amount of knowledge available on affordances and on the influence of illusions on actions (or lack of thereof), virtually nothing is known about the reverse: the influence of action-related parameters on the perception of visual illusions. Here, we tested a hypothesis that the response mode (that can be linked to action-relevant features) can affect perception of the Poggendorff (geometric) and of the Vanishing Point (motion) illusion. We explored the role of hand dominance (right dominant versus left non-dominant hand) and its interaction with stimulus spatial alignment (i.e., congruency between visual stimulus and the hand used for responses). Seventeen right-handed participants performed our tasks with their right and left hands, and the stimuli were presented in regular and mirror-reversed views. It turned out that the regular version of the Poggendorff display generates a stronger illusion compared to the mirror version, and that participants are less accurate and show more variability when they use their left hand in responding to the Vanishing Point. In summary, our results show that there is a marginal effect of hand precision in motion related illusions, which is absent for geometrical illusions. In the latter, attentional anisometry seems to play a greater role in generating the illusory effect. Taken together, our findings suggest that changes in the response mode (here: manual action-related parameters) do not necessarily affect illusion perception. Therefore, although intuitively speaking there should be at least unidirectional effects of perception on action, and possible interactions between the two systems, this simple study still suggests their relative independence, except for the case when the less skilled (non-dominant) hand and arguably more deliberate responses are used.

Recognizing familiar objects by hand and foot: Haptic shape perception generalizes to inputs from unusual locations and untrained body parts

The limits of generalization of our 3-D shape recognition system to identifying objects by touch was investigated by testing exploration at unusual locations and using untrained effectors. In Experiments 1 and 2, people found identification by hand of real objects, plastic 3-D models of objects, and raised line drawings placed in front of themselves no easier than when exploration was behind their back. Experiment 3 compared one-handed, two-handed, one-footed, and two-footed haptic object recognition of familiar objects. Recognition by foot was slower (7 vs. 13 s) and much less accurate (9 % vs. 47 % errors) than recognition by either one or both hands. Nevertheless, item difficulty was similar across hand and foot exploration, and there was a strong correlation between an individual's hand and foot performance. Furthermore, foot recognition was better with the largest 20 of the 80 items (32 % errors), suggesting that physical limitations hampered exploration by foot. Thus, object recognition by hand generalized efficiently across the spatial location of stimuli, while object recognition by foot seemed surprisingly good given that no prior training was provided. Active touch (haptics) thus efficiently extracts 3-D shape information and accesses stored representations of familiar objects from novel modes of input.

Where you look can influence haptic object recognition

We investigated whether the relative position of objects and the body would influence haptic recognition. People felt objects on the right or left side of their body midline, using their right hand. Their head was turned towards or away from the object, and they could not see their hands or the object. People were better at naming 2-D raised line drawings and 3-D small-scale models of objects and also real, everyday objects when they looked towards them. However, this head-towards benefit was reliable only when their right hand crossed their body midline to feel objects on their left side. Thus, haptic object recognition was influenced by people's head position, although vision of their hand and the object was blocked. This benefit of turning the head towards the object being explored suggests that proprioceptive and haptic inputs are remapped into an external coordinate system and that this remapping is harder when the body is in an unusual position (with the hand crossing the body midline and the head turned away from the hand). The results indicate that haptic processes align sensory inputs from the hand and head even though either hand-centered or object-centered coordinate systems should suffice for haptic object recognition.

The effect of vertical and horizontal symmetry on memory for tactile patterns in late blind individuals

Visual stimuli that exhibit vertical symmetry are easier to remember than stimuli symmetric along other axes, an advantage that extends to the haptic modality as well. Critically, the vertical symmetry memory advantage has not been found in early blind individuals, despite their overall superior memory, as compared with sighted individuals, and the presence of an overall advantage for identifying symmetric over asymmetric patterns. The absence of the vertical axis memory advantage in the early blind may depend on their total lack of visual experience or on the effect of prolonged visual deprivation. To disentangle this issue, in this study, we measured the ability of late blind individuals to remember tactile spatial patterns that were either vertically or horizontally symmetric or asymmetric. Late blind participants showed better memory performance for symmetric patterns. An additional advantage for the vertical axis of symmetry over the horizontal one was reported, but only for patterns presented in the frontal plane. In the horizontal plane, no difference was observed between vertical and horizontal symmetric patterns, due to the latter being recalled particularly well. These results are discussed in terms of the influence of the spatial reference frame adopted during exploration. Overall, our data suggest that prior visual experience is sufficient to drive the vertical symmetry memory advantage, at least when an external reference frame based on geocentric cues (i.e., gravity) is adopted.

Haptic object perception: spatial dimensionality and relation to vision

Enabled by the remarkable dexterity of the human hand, specialized haptic exploration is a hallmark of object perception by touch. Haptic exploration normally takes place in a spatial world that is three-dimensional; nevertheless, stimuli of reduced spatial dimensionality are also used to display spatial information. This paper examines the consequences of full (three-dimensional) versus reduced (two-dimensional) spatial dimensionality for object processing by touch, particularly in comparison with vision. We begin with perceptual recognition of common human-made artefacts, then extend our discussion of spatial dimensionality in touch and vision to include faces, drawing from research on haptic recognition of facial identity and emotional expressions. Faces have often been characterized as constituting a specialized input for human perception. We find that contrary to vision, haptic processing of common objects is impaired by reduced spatial dimensionality, whereas haptic face processing is not. We interpret these results in terms of fundamental differences in object perception across the modalities, particularly the special role of manual exploration in extracting a three-dimensional structure.

Haptic Object Recognition: How Important are Depth Cues and Plane Orientation?

Raised-line drawings of familiar objects are very difficult to identify with active touch only. In contrast, haptically explored real 3-D objects are usually recognised efficiently, albeit slower and less accurately than with vision. Real 3-D objects have more depth information than outline drawings, but also extra information about identity (eg texture, hardness, temperature). Previous studies have not manipulated the availability of depth information in haptic object recognition whilst controlling for other information sources, so the importance of depth cues has not been assessed. In the present experiments, people named plastic small-scale models of familiar objects. Five versions of bilaterally symmetrical objects were produced. Versions varied only in the amount of depth information: minimal for cookie-cutter and filled-in outlines, partial for squashed and half objects, and full for 3-D models. Recognition was faster and much more accurate when more depth information was available, whether exploration was with both hands or just one finger. Novices found it almost impossible to recognise objects explored with two hand-held probes whereas experts succeeded using probes regardless of the amount of depth information. Surprisingly, plane misorientation did not impair recognition. Unlike with vision, depth information, but not object orientation, is extremely important for haptic object recognition.