Cited by 36Tactile and Sensory InteractionsMultisensory perception and integrationMotor Control and Adaptation

Other ways of seeing: From behavior to neural mechanisms in the online “visual” control of action with sensory substitution

Open access
Proulx, Michael J., Gwinnutt, James, Dell’Erba, Sara, Levy-Tzedek, Shelly, de Sousa, Alexandra A., Brown, David J.·2015·Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience

Abstract

Vision is the dominant sense for perception-for-action in humans and other higher primates. Advances in sight restoration now utilize the other intact senses to provide information that is normally sensed visually through sensory substitution to replace missing visual information. Sensory substitution devices translate visual information from a sensor, such as a camera or ultrasound device, into a format that the auditory or tactile systems can detect and process, so the visually impaired can see through hearing or touch. Online control of action is essential for many daily tasks such as pointing, grasping and navigating, and adapting to a sensory substitution device successfully requires extensive learning. Here we review the research on sensory substitution for vision restoration in the context of providing the means of online control for action in the blind or blindfolded. It appears that the use of sensory substitution devices utilizes the neural visual system; this suggests the hypothesis that sensory substitution draws on the same underlying mechanisms as unimpaired visual control of action. Here we review the current state of the art for sensory substitution approaches to object recognition, localization, and navigation, and the potential these approaches have for revealing a metamodal behavioral and neural basis for the online control of action.

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 · 10.3233/rnn-150541

Cites

129 of 129 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?

  • There is now good evidence that brain regions considered primarily devoted to a particular sense also respond to stimulation from other senses.

    “There is now good evidence that brain regions considered primarily devoted to a particular sense also respond to stimulation from other senses (Proulx et al., 2016; Ricciardi et al., 2014a; see section 3).”

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

  • Available evidence suggests that there is great potential in sensory substitution methods.

    “Notably, although the available evidence suggests that there is great potential in sensory substitution methods (see Bach-y-Rita & Kercel, 2003; Merabet & Pascual-Leone, 2010; Proulx et al., 2016; Shull & Damian, 2015; Nagel et al., 2005, for reviews)”

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

  • The information capacity of the human ear falls between that of vision and haptic perception.

    “while the information capacity of the human ear falls between these two estimates (Bialek et al., 1993; Dudel, 1986; Proulx et al., 2016; Wurtz & Kandel, 2000).”

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

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., Gwinnutt, J., Dell’Erba, S., Levy-Tzedek, S., de Sousa, A. A., & Brown, D. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Bath (GB)
  • Cognition, Aging and Rehabilitation Lab, Recanati School for Community Health Professions, Department of Physical Therapy & Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
  • Crossmodal Cognition Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK
Corresponding author
Proulx, Michael J.
Venue
Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience
Published
2015-10-30
Volume
34
Issue
1
Pages
29-44
ISSN
  • 0922-6028 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-3627
OpenAlex
W2179471768
Cited by
36
References
129
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3
FWCI
0.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Space (acceptedVersion)
  • The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/J017205/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
sensory substitution, visual impairment, object recognition, localization, navigation, vision restoration
MeSH terms
Blindness, Brain, Humans, Motor Activity, 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