Tactual Perception

2001 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Scott
Keyword(s):  
Tactual Perception

scholarly journals Tactual perception: a review of experimental variables and procedures

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 285-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra M. Fernandes ◽  
Pedro B. Albuquerque
Keyword(s):  
Tactual Perception

Effects of Orientation and Redundancy on Tactual Perception of Form

1968 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel S. Warm ◽  
Emerson Foulke
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Orientation ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Similar Stimulus ◽  
Tactual Perception ◽  
Stimulus Parameters ◽  
Speed And Accuracy

The present study determined the effects of absolute spatial orientation and Redundancy-I on the tactual recognition of metric figures. Four orientations (base horizontal distinctive contour upward, base horizontal distinctive contour downward, base vertical distinctive contour to S's right, base vertical distinctive contour to S's left) were used with random and redundant figures. The stimuli displayed consisted of raised dots; standard Braille values were employed for dot height and spacing. In terms of both speed and accuracy of recognition, performance was better for random than for redundant figures. The effect of spatial orientation was negligible. Results are considered in regard to the comparative influence of similar stimulus parameters in the perception of visual and tactual form.

Tactual perception of visual information.

1964 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. Bliss ◽  
Kenneth Kotovsky ◽  
Brian King ◽  
Hewitt D. Crane
Keyword(s):  
Visual Information ◽  
Tactual Perception

The Spatial Characteristics of Tactile Form Perception

Perception ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 615-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon R Oldfield ◽  
John R Phillips
Keyword(s):  
Coordinate System ◽  
Mirror Image ◽  
Form Perception ◽  
Spatial Characteristics ◽  
Tactual Perception ◽  
Spatial Coordinate ◽  
Spatial Coordinates ◽  
Object Form ◽  
Skin Receptors

The perceived orientation of a raised letterform indenting the skin of the finger reverses (from normal to its mirror-image) when the letter is held in contact with the finger and both are rotated through 180° about the axis of the finger. Thus, though the pattern of stimulated skin receptors remains constant, the perceived orientation of the letter reverses. On the basis of this observation it is proposed that tactual perception of object form involves assignment of a spatial coordinate system within which the patterns of skin stimulation are interpreted. In experiments in which the orientations of letters and subjects are systematically varied within the environment, the occurrence or nonoccurrence of reversal in perceived orientation of letters has been used to investigate the origin of the proposed spatial coordinate system; that is, whether it is assigned with respect to the observer (egocentrically) or with respect to the environment (geocentrically). The results indicate that the assignment of coordinates is determined by both egocentric and geocentric factors. It is proposed that the reversal phenomena observed in these experiments, and in experiments of others which involve drawing characters on the skin, are consistent with Gibson's proposal that it is object form which is directly perceived, but that this involves interpretation of the patterns of skin stimulation within a framework of spatial coordinates.

scholarly journals Perception, Exploration, and the Primacy of Touch

2018 ◽  
pp. 280-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Ratcliffe
Keyword(s):  
The Body ◽  
The Other ◽  
Tactual Perception ◽  
Bodily Activity ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Recent Formulation

This chapter addresses the question of whether and how the relationship between touch, the body, and bodily activity might be distinctive. I begin by raising a problem for any claim concerning the nature of “touch”: it is unclear what touch is, and all generalizations concerning touch are susceptible to counterexamples. Following this, I consider a recent formulation of the view that tactual perception sometimes utilizes bodily exploration in a distinctive way, and show why that view is problematic. I go on to address various formulations of the claim that touch is somehow more fundamental than the other senses, insofar as it is more intimately bound up with our bodily nature. All of these turn out to be unclear or implausible. I conclude that the most plausible case for the primacy of touch involves an appeal to its diversity, rather than to any particular characteristic of touch.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document