Cited by 24Tactile and Sensory InteractionsVisual perception and processing mechanismsSpatial Cognition and Navigation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tactile Picture Recognition: Errors Are in Shape Acquisition or Object Matching?

Sinha, Pawan, Kalia, Amy A.·2012·Seeing and Perceiving

Abstract

Numerous studies have demonstrated that sighted and blind individuals find it difficult to recognize tactile pictures of common objects. However, it is still not clear what makes recognition of tactile pictures so difficult. One possibility is that observers have difficulty acquiring the global shape of the image when feeling it. Alternatively, observers may have an accurate understanding of the shape but are unable to link it to a particular object representation. We, therefore, conducted two experiments to determine where tactile picture recognition goes awry. In Experiment 1, we found that recognition of tactile pictures by blindfolded sighted observers correlated with image characteristics that affect shape acquisition (symmetry and complexity). In Experiment 2, we asked drawing experts to draw what they perceived after feeling the images. We found that the experts produced three types of drawings when they could not recognize the tactile pictures: (1) drawings that did not look like objects (incoherent), (2) drawings that looked like incorrect objects (coherent but inaccurate) and (3) drawings that looked like the correct objects ( coherent and accurate). The majority of errors seemed to result from inaccurate perception of the global shape of the image (error types 1 and 2). Our results suggest that recognition of simplistic tactile pictures of objects is largely inhibited by low-level tactile shape processing rather than high-level object recognition mechanisms.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1163/187847511x584443

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Heller, 1984, Active and passive touch: the influence of exploration time, J. Gen. Psychol., 110, 243, 10.1080/00221309.1984.9709968 · DOI
  2. Heller, 1989, Picture and pattern perception in the sighted and the blind: the advantage of the late blind, Perception, 18, 379, 10.1068/p180379 · DOI
  3. Heller, 1983, Active and passive tactual recognition of form, J. Gen. Psychol., 108, 225, 10.1080/00221309.1983.9711496 · DOI
  4. Heller, 1996, Tactual picture identification by blind and sighted people: effects of providing categorical information, Percept. Psychophys., 58, 310, 10.3758/BF03211884 · DOI
  5. Hunter, 1990, Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
  6. Huttenlocher, 1993, Comparing images using the Hausdorff distance, IEEE Trans. Patt. Anal. Machine Intell., 15, 850, 10.1109/34.232073 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Jähne, 1999, Principles of filter design, Vol. 2, 125
  8. Klatzky, 1993, Haptic identification of objects and their depictions, Percept. Psychohys, 54, 170, 10.3758/BF03211752 · DOI
  9. Lederman, 1990, Visual mediation and the haptic recognition of two-dimensional pictures of common objects, Percept. Psychophys., 47, 54, 10.3758/BF03208164 · DOI
  10. Loomis, 1981, Tactile pattern perception, Perception, 10, 5, 10.1068/p100005 · DOI
  11. Loomis, 1991, Similarity of tactual and visual picture recognition with limited field of view, Perception, 20, 167, 10.1068/p200167 · DOI
  12. Magee, 1980, Exploring pictures tactually, Nature, 283, 287, 10.1038/283287a0 · DOI
  13. Snodgrass, 1980, A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity, J. Exper. Psychol.: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174
  14. Thorndike, 1949, Personnel Selection
  15. Wijntjes, 2008, The influence of picture size on recognition and exploratory behavior in raised-line drawings, Perception, 37, 602, 10.1068/p5714 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sinha, P., & Kalia, A. A.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Seeing and Perceiving
Published
2012
Volume
25
Issue
3-4
Pages
287-302
ISSN
  • 1878-4755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-4763
OpenAlex
W2105917122
Cited by
24
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Seeing and Perceiving (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation
  • National Eye Institute (F32EY019622)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
Keywords
object matching, symmetry, visual complexity, drawing accuracy
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Form Perception, Humans, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Touch 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