Cited by 89Tactile and Sensory InteractionsAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityMultisensory perception and integration

Tactile-‘visual’ acuity of the tongue in early blind individuals

Chebat, Daniel-Robert, Rainville, Constant, Kupers, Ron, Ptito, Maurice·2007·Neuroreport

Abstract

This study compares the 'tactile-visual' acuity of the tongue for 15 early blind participants with that of 24 age-matched and sex-matched sighted controls. Snellen's tumbling E test was used to assess 'visual' acuity using the tongue display unit. The tongue display unit is a sensory substitution device that converts a visual stimulus grabbed by a camera into electro-tactile pulses delivered to the tongue via a grid made out of electrodes. No overall significant difference was found in thresholds between early blind (1/206) and sighted control (1/237) participants. We found, however, a larger proportion of early blind in the two highest visual acuity categories (1/150 and 1/90). These results extend earlier findings that it is possible to measure visual acuity in the blind individuals using the tongue. Moreover, our data demonstrate that a subgroup of early blind participants is more efficient than controls in conveying visual information through the tongue.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/wnr.0b013e3282f2a63

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • Striem-Amit et al. (2012a) found participants performed better than in experiments with tactile SSDs and retinal prostheses.

    “Participants performed better than in experiments with tactile SSDs (Chebat et al., 2007, Sampaio et al., 2001), retinal prostheses (Zrenner et al., 2010) and 55% showed acuity higher than the threshold for blindness (see also Levy-Tzedek, Riemer, & Amedi, 2014).”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Chebat et al., 2007

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chebat, D.-R., Rainville, C., Kupers, R., & Ptito, M.
Affiliations
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
  • Rigshospitalet (DK)
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Ptito, Maurice
Venue
Neuroreport
Published
2007-12-03
Volume
18
Issue
18
Pages
1901-1904
ISSN
0959-4965 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2040463736
Cited by
88
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroreport (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
tongue, early blindness, sensory substitution, visual acuity testing
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Adult, Afferent Pathways, Blindness, Discrimination Learning, Electric Stimulation, Female, Humans, Hyperesthesia, Functional Laterality, Male, Middle Aged, Neuronal Plasticity, Neuropsychological Tests, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Sensory Aids, Sensory Deprivation, Sensory Thresholds, Somatosensory Cortex, Tongue, Touch, Visual Cortex, Visual Perception

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