Cited by 27Tactile and Sensory InteractionsMultisensory perception and integrationVisual perception and processing mechanisms

A lateral masking effect in tactile and blurred visual letter recognition

Open access
Loomis, Jack M., Apkarian-Stielau, Patricia·1976·Perception & Psychophysics

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 · 10.3758/bf03199447

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • Spatial localization accuracy is at least an order of magnitude poorer for haptics than for vision.

    “Spatial localization accuracy is at least an order of magnitude poorer for haptics than for vision (Apkarian-Stielau & Loomis, 1975; Loomis & Apkarian-Stielau, 1976).”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Loomis & Apkarian-Stielau, 1976

    The Apparatus section gives rough spatial-resolution measurements for touch on the back and deliberately blurred vision, while the Discussion describes their resolution under those conditions as approximately equal. Neither section reports spatial localization accuracy or establishes an order-of-magnitude difference between haptics and vision. Searches for localization accuracy and a tenfold tactile–visual comparison found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. CRAIG. J. C. Pictorial and abstract cutaneous displays. In F. A. Geldard (Ed.), Cutaneous communication systems and devices. Austin, Tex: Psychonomic Society. 1974. (a)
  2. GILSON. R. D. Vibratory masking. In F. A. Geldard (Ed.), Cutaneous communication systems and devices. Austin, Tex: Psychonomic Society, 1974.
  3. ROLLMAN, G. B. Electrocutaneous stimulation. In F. A. Geldard (Ed.), Cutaneous communication systems and devices. Austin, Tex: Psychonomic Society, 1974.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Loomis, J. M., & Apkarian-Stielau, P.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Venue
Perception & Psychophysics
Published
1976-07
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
221-226
ISSN
  • 0031-5117 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5962
OpenAlex
W1972920182
Cited by
27
References
20
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
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 › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
lateral masking, vibrotactile stimulation, spatial separation, multisensory integration

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