Cited by 27Tactile and Sensory InteractionsMotor Control and AdaptationVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Tactile perceptual learning: learning curves and transfer to the contralateral finger

Open access
Kaas, Amanda L., van de Ven, Vincent, Reithler, Joel, Goebel, Rainer·2013·Experimental Brain Research

Abstract

Tactile perceptual learning has been shown to improve performance on tactile tasks, but there is no agreement about the extent of transfer to untrained skin locations. The lack of such transfer is often seen as a behavioral index of the contribution of early somatosensory brain regions. Moreover, the time course of improvements has never been described explicitly. Sixteen subjects were trained on the Ludvigh task (a tactile vernier task) on four subsequent days. On the fifth day, transfer of learning to the non-trained contralateral hand was tested. In five subjects, we explored to what extent training effects were retained approximately 1.5 years after the final training session, expecting to find long-term retention of learning effects after training. Results showed that tactile perceptual learning mainly occurred offline, between sessions. Training effects did not transfer initially, but became fully available to the untrained contralateral hand after a few additional training runs. After 1.5 years, training effects were not fully washed out and could be recuperated within a single training session. Interpreted in the light of theories of visual perceptual learning, these results suggest that tactile perceptual learning is not fundamentally different from visual perceptual learning, but might proceed at a slower pace due to procedural and task differences, thus explaining the apparent divergence in the amount of transfer and long-term retention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00221-012-3329-8

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kaas, A. L., van de Ven, V., Reithler, J., & Goebel, R.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience (NL)
Corresponding author
Kaas, Amanda L.
Venue
Experimental Brain Research
Published
2012-11-18
Volume
224
Issue
3
Pages
477-488
ISSN
  • 0014-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1106
OpenAlex
W2123409945
Cited by
27
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Experimental Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • KNAW Research Portal (The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
transfer of learning, contralateral hand, long-term retention, learning curve, somatosensory cortex, procedural learning
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Fingers, Humans, Learning, Male, Touch, Transfer, Psychology, Touch Perception, Learning Curve

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