Cited by 67Tactile and Sensory InteractionsMotor Control and AdaptationMultisensory perception and integration

Tactile acuity in the blind: A psychophysical study using a two-dimensional angle discrimination task

Alary, Flamine, Goldstein, Rachel, Duquette, Marco, Chapman, C. Elaine, Voss, Patrice, Lepore, Franco·2008·Experimental Brain Research

Abstract

Growing evidence suggests that blind subjects outperform the sighted on certain tactile discrimination tasks depending on cutaneous inputs. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of blind (n = 14) and sighted (n = 15) subjects in a haptic angle discrimination task, depending on both cutaneous and proprioceptive feedback. Subjects actively scanned their right index finger over pairs of two-dimensional (2-D) angles (standard 90 degrees ; comparison 91-103 degrees ), identifying the larger one. Two exploratory strategies were tested: arm straight or arm flexed at the elbow so that joint movement was, respectively, mainly proximal (shoulder) or distal (wrist, finger). The mean discrimination thresholds for the sighted subjects (vision occluded) were similar for both exploratory strategies (5.7 and 5.8 degrees , respectively). Exploratory strategy likewise did not modify threshold in the blind subjects (proximal 4.3 degrees ; distal 4.9 degrees ), but thresholds were on average lower than for the sighted subjects. A between-group comparison indicated that blind subjects had significantly lower thresholds than did the sighted subjects, but only for the proximal condition. The superior performance of the blind subjects likely represents heightened sensitivity to haptic inputs in response to visual deprivation, which, in these subjects, occurred prior to 14 years of age.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00221-008-1327-7

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alary, F., Goldstein, R., Duquette, M., Chapman, C. E., Voss, P., & Lepore, F.
Affiliations
Université de Montréal (CA)
Venue
Experimental Brain Research
Published
2008-02-28
Volume
187
Issue
4
Pages
587-594
ISSN
  • 0014-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1106
OpenAlex
W1999691334
Cited by
66
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Experimental Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
tactile acuity, blindness, cutaneous feedback, proprioception, visual deprivation, exploration strategy, arm flexion, discrimination thresholds, blind versus sighted comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Blindness, Discrimination, Psychological, Female, Fingers, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Proprioception, Psychomotor Performance, Psychophysics, Sensory Thresholds, Touch, Recognition, Psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review