Cited by 72Tactile and Sensory InteractionsMultisensory perception and integrationAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

How well do you see what you hear? The acuity of visual-to-auditory sensory substitution

Open access
Haigh, Alastair, Brown, David J., Meijer, Peter, Proulx, Michael J.·2013·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Sensory substitution devices (SSDs) aim to compensate for the loss of a sensory modality, typically vision, by converting information from the lost modality into stimuli in a remaining modality. "The vOICe" is a visual-to-auditory SSD which encodes images taken by a camera worn by the user into "soundscapes" such that experienced users can extract information about their surroundings. Here we investigated how much detail was resolvable during the early induction stages by testing the acuity of blindfolded sighted, naïve vOICe users. Initial performance was well above chance. Participants who took the test twice as a form of minimal training showed a marked improvement on the second test. Acuity was slightly but not significantly impaired when participants wore a camera and judged letter orientations "live". A positive correlation was found between participants' musical training and their acuity. The relationship between auditory expertise via musical training and the lack of a relationship with visual imagery, suggests that early use of a SSD draws primarily on the mechanisms of the sensory modality being used rather than the one being substituted. If vision is lost, audition represents the sensory channel of highest bandwidth of those remaining. The level of acuity found here, and the fact it was achieved with very little experience in sensory substitution by naïve users is promising.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00330

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • Haigh et al. (2013) indicates that the accuracy of visual-to-auditory sensory substitution (with the vOICe) is promising.

    “A recent study (Haigh et al., 2013) indicates that the accuracy of visual-to-auditory sensory substitution (with the vOICe) is promising.”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Haigh et al., 2013

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
Haigh, A., Brown, D. J., Meijer, P., & Proulx, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of Bath (GB)
Corresponding author
Proulx, Michael J.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2013
Volume
4
Pages
330-330
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1967713917
Cited by
72
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2
FWCI
5.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/K503897/1, EP/J017205/1)
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 devices, voice, visual acuity, hearing acuity, musical training, visual imagery

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