Cited by 82Tactile and Sensory InteractionsMultisensory perception and integrationAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Seeing ‘Where’ through the Ears: Effects of Learning-by-Doing and Long-Term Sensory Deprivation on Localization Based on Image-to-Sound Substitution

Open access
Proulx, Michael J., Stoerig, Petra, Ludowig, Eva, Knoll, Inna·2008·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sensory substitution devices for the blind translate inaccessible visual information into a format that intact sensory pathways can process. We here tested image-to-sound conversion-based localization of visual stimuli (LEDs and objects) in 13 blindfolded participants. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Subjects were assigned to different roles as a function of two variables: visual deprivation (blindfolded continuously (Bc) for 24 hours per day for 21 days; blindfolded for the tests only (Bt)) and system use (system not used (Sn); system used for tests only (St); system used continuously for 21 days (Sc)). The effect of learning-by-doing was assessed by comparing the performance of eight subjects (BtSt) who only used the mobile substitution device for the tests, to that of three subjects who, in addition, practiced with it for four hours daily in their normal life (BtSc and BcSc); two subjects who did not use the device at all (BtSn and BcSn) allowed assessment of its use in the tasks we employed. The impact of long-term sensory deprivation was investigated by blindfolding three of those participants throughout the three week-long experiment (BcSn, BcSn/c, and BcSc); the other ten subjects were only blindfolded during the tests (BtSn, BtSc, and the eight BtSt subjects). Expectedly, the two subjects who never used the substitution device, while fast in finding the targets, had chance accuracy, whereas subjects who used the device were markedly slower, but showed much better accuracy which improved significantly across our four testing sessions. The three subjects who freely used the device daily as well as during tests were faster and more accurate than those who used it during tests only; however, long-term blindfolding did not notably influence performance. CONCLUSIONS: Together, the results demonstrate that the device allowed blindfolded subjects to increasingly know where something was by listening, and indicate that practice in naturalistic conditions effectively improved "visual" localization performance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0001840

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Externalization with the haptic stimulator array only occurred for observers who actively trained with the device.

    “Note importantly, that this only occurred for observers who actively trained with the device, consistent with the findings of Maravita et al. (2001, 2003; see also discussion in Proulx et al., 2008; Ward & Meijer, 2010; Bach-Y-Rita & Kercel, 2003; Stiles, Zheng & Shimojo, 2015).”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Proulx et al., 2008

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that daily practice with an image-to-sound device improved localization performance relative to using it only during tests. It does not report externalization with a haptic stimulator array or establish that externalization occurred only after active training. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Proulx, M. J., Stoerig, P., Ludowig, E., & Knoll, I.
Affiliations
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
Corresponding author
Proulx, Michael J.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2008-03-26
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
e1840
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036060855
Cited by
81
References
21
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 9
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
sensory substitution, sound localization, visual localization, sensory deprivation, blindfolding, hands-on learning, visual impairment, blind people, practice effects
MeSH terms
Blindness, Hearing, Humans, Learning, Light, Sensory Deprivation

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