CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,435Tactile and Sensory InteractionsMotor Control and AdaptationMultisensory perception and integration

Observations on active touch

Gibson, James J.·1962·Psychological Review
DOI 10.1037/h0046962
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Active touch refers to what is ordinarily called touching. This ought to be distinguished from passive touch, or being touched. In one case the impression on the skin is brought about by the perceiver himself and in the other case by some outside agency. The difference is very important for the individual but it has not been emphasized in sensory psychology, and particularly not in the experimental literature. Active touch is an exploratory rather than a merely receptive sense. When a person touches something with his fingers he produces the stimulation as it were. More exactly, variations in skin stimulation are caused by variation in his motor activity. What happens at his fingers depends on the movements that he makes—• and also, of course, on the object that he touches. Such movements are not the ordinary kind usually thought of as responses. They do not modify the environment but only the stimuli coming from the environment. Presumably they enhance some features of the potential stimulation and reduce others. They are exploratory instead of performatory. In this respect,

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0046962

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • When a cookie-cutter was pushed onto participants' palms but remained stationary, identification rates of its pattern were just under 50%.

    “When a cookie-cutter was pushed onto participants’ palms but remained otherwise stationary, identification rates of its pattern were just under 50% percent, while if the cutter was pushed around in the observers’ palm, recognition became about 95% correct (see also Novich & Eagleman, 2015).”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Gibson (1962)

  • When the cutter was pushed around in the observers' palm, recognition became about 95% correct.

    “When a cookie-cutter was pushed onto participants’ palms but remained otherwise stationary, identification rates of its pattern were just under 50% percent, while if the cutter was pushed around in the observers’ palm, recognition became about 95% correct (see also Novich & Eagleman, 2015).”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Gibson (1962)

  • Effective resolution can be increased through patterns of stimulation.

    “But they also emphasize that effective resolution can be increased through patterns of stimulation (Gibson, 1962; Loomis et al., 2012; Novich & Eagleman, 2015).”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Gibson, 1962

  • Gibson (1962) demonstrated the difference between passive haptic perception and haptic perception of a moving stimulus.

    “In an elegant experiment, Gibson (1962) demonstrated the difference between passive haptic perception and haptic perception of a moving stimulus.”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Gibson (1962)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gibson, J. J.
Corresponding author
Gibson, James J.
Venue
Psychological Review
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1962-11
Volume
69
Issue
6
Pages
477-491
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
DOI
10.1037/h0046962
OpenAlex
W1972265563
Cited by
1,435
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 84 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 48
FWCI
3.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Review (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
active touch, touch, tactile perception, haptic perception
MeSH terms
Humans, Touch

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