Cited by 112Tactile and Sensory InteractionsMultisensory perception and integrationVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts

There is something out there: Distal attribution in sensory substitution, twenty years later

Open access
AUVRAY, MALIKA, HANNETON, SYLVAIN, LENAY, CHARLES, O'REGAN, KEVIN·2005·Journal of Integrative Neuroscience

Abstract

Sensory substitution constitutes an interesting domain of study to consider the philosopher's classical question of distal attribution: how we can distinguish between a sensation and the perception of an object that causes this sensation. We tested the hypothesis that distal attribution consists of three distinct components: an object, a perceptual space, and a coupling between subjects' movements and stimulation. We equipped sixty participants with a visual-to-auditory substitution device, without any information about it. The device converts the video stream produced by a head-mounted camera into a sound stream. We investigated several experimental conditions: the existence or not of a correlation between movements and resulting stimulation, the direct or indirect manipulation of an object, and the presence of a background environment. Participants were asked to describe their impressions by rating their experiences in terms of seven possible "scenarios". These scenarios were carefully chosen to distinguish the degree to which the participants attributed their sensations to a distal cause. Participants rated the scenarios both before and after they were given the possibility to interrupt the stimulation with an obstacle. We were interested in several questions. Did participants extract laws of co-variation between their movements and resulting stimulation? Did they deduce the existence of a perceptual space originating from this coupling? Did they individuate objects that caused the sensations? Whatever the experimental conditions, participants were able to establish that there was a link between their movements and the resulting auditory stimulation. Detection of the existence of a coupling was more frequent than the inferences of distal space and object.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1142/s0219635205001002

Cites

22 of 22 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
AUVRAY, M., HANNETON, S., LENAY, C., & O'REGAN, K.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Université de Technologie de Compiègne (FR)
Venue
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
Published
2005-12
Volume
04
Issue
04
Pages
505-521
ISSN
  • 0219-6352 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-448X
OpenAlex
W2127762938
Cited by
112
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Integrative Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Keywords
sensory substitution, object perception, perceptual space, covariation, object individuation, head-mounted camera
MeSH terms
Auditory Perception, Equipment and Supplies, Humans, Movement, Neuronal Plasticity, 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