A comparison of tactile and blurred visual form perception
Open accessThe 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Apkarian-Stielau and Loomis (1975) found recognition across modalities became similar only when visual presentation was considerably blurred, as if a low-pass filter were applied to tactile stimuli.
“Apkarian-Stielau and Loomis (1975) presented alphabetic letters haptically and visually, finding that recognition across modalities became similar only when the visual presentation was considerably blurred, as if a low-pass filter were applied to the tactile stimuli.”
From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Apkarian-Stielau and Loomis (1975)
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 Apkarian-Stielau & Loomis, 1975
The Discussion (page unavailable) says the study did not explicitly determine localization acuity for either blurred vision or the cutaneous sense. The Results (page unavailable) compare localization with resolution within the tested conditions, but provide no tenfold comparison of haptic and visual localization accuracy. Searches for a cross-modal localization threshold or order-of-magnitude difference found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- BACB-y-RITA, P. Brain mechanisms in sensory substitution. New York: Academic Press. 1972.
- BiU:sy. G. YON. Sensory inhibition. Princeton, N.1: Princeton University Press, 1967.
- BORING. E. G. The two-point limen and the error of localization. American Journal of Psychology, 1930. 42, 446-449.
- CRAIG. J. C. Pictorial and abstract cutaneous displays. In F. A. Geldard (Ed.). Cutaneous communication systems and devices, Austin, Tex: Psychonomic Society, 1974.
- DALLENBACH. K. M. A comparative study of the error of localization on the tingertips. American Journal of Psych%gy, 1932. 44. 327-331.
- HILL. J. W. Limited tield of view in reading lettershapes with the fingers, In F. A. Geldard (Ed.), Cutaneous communication systems and devices. Austin, Tex: Psychonomic Society'. 1974.
- HOLML~ND. G. Woo & COLLINS. C. C. An electromagnetic tactile stimulator. Journal ofBiomedical Systems, 1970. I, 25-40.
- JENKINS. W. L.. & STONE, L. J. Recent research in cutaneous sensitivitv. II. Touch and the neural basis of the skin senses. Psychological Bulletin, 1941. 38, 69-91.
- UNKSZ, A. Physiology of the eye. (Vol. 2) Vision. New York: Grune & Stratton. 1952.
- UNVILL. J. Goo& BLISS, J. C. A direct translation reading aid for the blind. Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 1966. 54, 40-51.
- loOMIS, J. M. Tactile letter recognition under different modes of stimulus presentation. Perception & Psychophysics, 1974, 16, 401-408.
- MOUNTCASTLE. V. B. Some functional properties of the somatic afferent system. In W. A. Rosenblith (Ed.), Sensory communication. Cambridge, Mass: M.l.T. Press, 1961.
- RIGGS, L. A. Visual acuity. In C. H. Graham (Ed.), Vision and visual perception, New York: Wiley, 1965.
- SCADDb" L. A. Perception of patterned vibratory stimulation: An evaluation of the Tactile Vision Substitution System. Doctoral thesis, University of the Pacitic, 1971.
- SCADDEN. L. A. Tactile pattern recognition and body loci. Perception. 1973, 2, 333-3J6.
- In D. R. Kenshalo (Ed.), The skin senses. Springfield, III: Thomas, 1%8.
- WERNER, G., & WHITSEL, B. L. Functional organization of the somatosensory cortex. In A. Iggo (Ed.), Handbook of sensory physiology (Vol. Ill. Somatosensory system. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1973.
- WESTHEIMER, G. Visual acuity and spatial modulation thresholds. In D. Jameson & L. M. Hurvich (Eds.). Handbook of sensory physiology (Vol. 7/4), Visual psychophysics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1972.
- ZIGLER, M. J. The experimental relation of the two-point limen to the error of localization. Journal of General Psychology. 1935, 13. 316-331. NOTE
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1
Kristjánsson, Á., Moldoveanu, A., Jóhannesson, Ó. I., Balan, O., Spagnol, S., Valgeirsdóttir, V. V., & Unnthorsson, R. (2016) · Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience · doi:10.3233/rnn-160647 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
“Spatial localization accuracy is at least an order of magnitude poorer for haptics than for vision (Apkarian-Stielau & Loomis, 1975; Loomis & Apkarian-Stielau, 1976).”
BackgroundKlatzky, R. L., Giudice, N. A., Bennett, C. R., & Loomis, J. M. (2014) · Multisensory Research · doi:10.1163/22134808-00002447 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Self-citationThe role of visual deprivation and experience on the performance of sensory substitution devices
Stronks, H. C., Nau, A. C., Ibbotson, M. R., & Barnes, N. (2015) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2015.06.033 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
A lateral masking effect in tactile and blurred visual letter recognition
Loomis, J. M., & Apkarian-Stielau, P. (1976) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03199447 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Apkarian-Stielau, P., & Loomis, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- Venue
- Perception & Psychophysics
- Published
- 1975-09
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 362-368
- ISSN
- 0031-5117 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-5962
- OpenAlex
- W1982901413
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- San Francisco State University
- National Institutes of Health
- 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 › Multisensory perception and integration
- Keywords
- visual form perception, blurred vision, cross-modal perception, letter recognition, slit scanning, visual resolution, localization
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
