Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Human Haptic Sensing and Touch Enabled Computer Applications

EuroHaptics 2016: Haptics: Perception, Devices, Control, and Applications pp 380–393Cite as

How Attention Is Allocated When Using Haptic Touch: Shape Feature Distinction and Discrimination Strategy

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 9774))

Abstract

This study investigated how attention is allocated by the physical distinction between tactile 2D shape features: Part 1 tested whether certain shape feature distinctions are perceived efficiently (pre-attentively), as opposed to inefficiently (attention dependent). Part 2 explored what discrimination strategies are at use, and with what level of attention (from pre to focused).

It was found (Part 1) that the straight line ↔ angle distinction and the curve ↔ straight line distinction are perceived pre-attentively; the angle ↔ curve distinction attention dependent. Furthermore (Part 2), three discrimination strategies were identified: The figure identity strategy has three levels of attention; it ranks a feature conjunction as the most important target-discriminating feature. The global characteristics strategy and the touch vision strategy have two levels of attention; both rank one separate feature as the most important target-discriminating feature. Despite this, they are equally fast, accurate, and after-decision certain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “(…) organized, domain-specific, nonobligatory pattern of decisions activated when confronted with (…) problems, and goal directed to attain the solution of the problem” [26, p. 12].

  2. 2.

    A pilot study, with one congenitally and two early blinded females (see footnote 3) [27], assessed the number of trials; the shape feature distinctions (e.g. size); the a priori themes [29] used for scoring Part 2.

  3. 3.

    They had no cognitive delay or impairment, and no physical disability. They had never before explored the Moon characters (see footnote 4). They were offered a remuneration to compensate for their time.

  4. 4.

    Moon were invented in 1845, to allow reading by haptic touch: Straight lines and curves form nine basic shapes, rotated to create the 26 letters of the English alphabet ([32]. Cf. Table 1, e.g. Trial 1: shape features 1, 2, 3 and 5 = Moon “m”, “l”, “y” and “e”, respectively). The Moon “h”, “n”, “o”, “z”, “8”, and the contraction for “and” all comprise more than one shape feature; however always a curve, thus were included in the test material (cf. Table 1, e.g. Trial 18).

  5. 5.

    The experiment took place in a quiet room, neutral in color. Distinct light sources, e.g. a specific lamp, were removed to minimize possible visual distractions; the general lighting of the room was lowered to minimize the color contrast between the (off-white) shape feature distinctions and the (blue) silicone mat. Before testing, the experimenter explained both the silicone mat – that it prevented the shape feature distinctions from moving around on the table – and the test itself. The test material was presented directly in front of the participant.

  6. 6.

    Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated: \( \chi_{\text{exploration time}}^{2} \left( 2\right) = 2 4.0,\,p = 0.000\,(\varepsilon = 0. 5 6) \) and \( \chi_{\text{after - decision certainty}}^{2} \left( 2\right) = 1 2. 6,\,p = 0.00 2\,(\varepsilon = 0. 6 5) \), thus the degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimate of sphericity.

  7. 7.

    For an example of incorrect targeting, see Table 1, Trial 11 (angle ↔ curve distinction): “Three figures with two angles and two figures with one angle”.

  8. 8.

    One was totally blinded about two years before this study and the other was congenitally blinded, with minimal visual shape perception in one eye and light perception in the other [27] until the age of 28; now totally blinded (for more than 20 years).

  9. 9.

    Leverne’s Test for Equality of Variances = 0.013.

  10. 10.

    “An angle has two lines.” “When the shape has more than two lines, then it is a curve (…).”

  11. 11.

    21 × 21 cm [25] vs. 13 × 5 cm; 11 distractors [25] vs. 4 distractors.

  12. 12.

    The touch vision strategy was not included in Graven’s [25] statistical analyses.

  13. 13.

    The figure identity strategy used (M) 17.7s [25] vs. 26.0s, and the global characteristics/touch vision strategy (M) 14.3s [25] vs. 20.9s (see footnote 12).

References

  1. Oxford Dictionaries (2015). http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/

  2. Heller, M.A.: Gentaz, E: Psychology of Touch and Blindness. Psychology Press, New York (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Millar, S.: Space and Sense. Psychology Press, Hove (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Heller, M.A., Calcaterra, J.A., Burson, L.L., Tyler, L.A.: Tactual picture identification by blind and sighted people: effects of providing categorical information. Percept. Psychophys. 58, 310–323 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pathak, K., Pring, L.: Tactual picture recognition in congenitally blind and sighted children. Appl. Cogn. Psych. 3, 337–350 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lavie, N., Cox, S.: On the efficiency of visual selective attention: efficient visual search leads to inefficient distractor rejection. Psychol. Sci. 8, 395–398 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lavie, N.: Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. J. Exp. Psychol.-Hum. Percept. Perform. 21, 451–468 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lederman, S.J., Browse, R.A., Klatzky, R.L.: Haptic processing of spatially distributed information. Percept. Psychophys. 44, 222–232 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Millar, S.: Strategy choices by young Braille readers. Perception 13, 567–579 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kennedy, J.M., Bai, J.: Haptic pictures: fit judgements predict identification, recognition memory, and confidence. Perception 31, 1013–1026 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lavie, N., Lin, Z., Zokaei, N., Toma, V.: The role of perceptual load in object recognition. J. Exp. Psychol.-Hum. Percept. Perform. 35, 1346–1358 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lavie, N., Tsal, Y.: Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Percept. Psychophys. 56, 183–197 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wolfe, J., Robertson, L.: From Perception to Consciousness: Searching with Anne Treisman. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Treisman, A.M., Gelade, G.: A feature-integration theory of attention. Cogn. Psychol. 12, 97–136 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Treisman, A.: The perception of features and objects. In: Baddeley, A., Weiskrantz, L. (eds.) Attention: Selection, Awareness, and Control: A Tribute to Donald Broadbent, pp. 5–35. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Treisman, A.: Features and objects: the fourteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. Q. J. Exp. Psychol.-A. 40, 201–237 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Treisman, A., Vieira, A., Hayes, A.: Automaticity and preattentive processing. Am. J. Psychol. 105, 341–362 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lederman, S.J., Klatzky, R.L.: Relative availability of surface and object properties during early haptic processing. J. Exp. Psychol.-Hum. Percept. Perform. 23, 1680–1707 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Plaisier, M.A., Bergmann Tiest, W.M., Kappers, A.M.L.: Haptic pop-out in a hand sweep. Acta Psychol. 128, 368–377 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Plaisier, M.A., Bergmann Tiest, W.M., Kappers, A.M.L.: Salient features in 3-D haptic shape perception. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 71, 421–430 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Plaisier, M.A., Kappers, A.M.: Cold objects pop out! In: Kappers, A.M., van Erp, J.B., Bergmann Tiest, W.M., van der Helm, F.C. (eds.) EuroHaptics 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6192, pp. 219–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. van Polanen, V., Bergmann Tiest, W.M., Kappers, A.M.L.: Haptic pop-out of movable stimuli. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 74, 204–215 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sathian, K.: Practice makes perfect: sharper tactile perception in the blind. Neurology 54, 2203–2204 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Treisman, A.M., Paterson, R.: Emergent features, attention, and object perception. J. Exp. Psychol.-Hum. Percept. Perform. 10, 12–31 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Graven, T.: How blind individuals discriminate braille characters: an identification and comparison of three discrimination strategies. Br. J. Vis. Impair. 33, 80–95 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ostad, S.A.: Strategic competence: issues of task-specific strategies in arithmetic. Nordic Stud. Math. Educ. 5, 7–32 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  27. ICD-10: International classification of diseases and related health problems 10th revision, Chapter VII Diseases of the eye adnexa (H00–H59). WHO (2010), (2015). http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/H53-H54

  28. Aanstoos, C.M.: The think aloud method in descriptive research. J. Phenomenol. Psychol. 14, 243–266 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. King, N.: Doing template analysis. In: Symon, G., Cassell, C. (eds.) Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges, pp. 426–450. SAGE Publications Ltd., London (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Graven, T.: Seeing Through Touch: When Touch Replaces Vision as the Dominant Sense Modality. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller AG & Co., Saarbrücken (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Spence, C., Nicholls, M.E.R., Driver, J.: The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality. Percept. Psychophys. 63, 330–336 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Moon Literacy: What is Moon? (2015). http://www.moonliteracy.org.uk/whatis.htm

  33. Heller, M.A., Clyburn, S.: Global versus local processing in haptic perception of form. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 31, 574–576 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lakatos, S., Marks, L.E.: Haptic form perception: relative salience of local and global features. Percept. Psychophys. 61, 895–908 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Soechting, J.F., Song, W., Flanders, M.: Haptic feature extraction. Cereb. Cortex 16, 1168–1180 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Persaud, N., McLeod, P., Cowey, A.: Post-decision wagering objectively measures awareness. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 257–261 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dienes, Z., Scott, R.: Measuring unconscious knowledge: distinguishing structural knowledge and judgment knowledge. Psychol. Res. 69, 338–351 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Braille Cell Dimensions (2015). http://www.tiresias.org/research/reports/braille_cell.htm

  39. Landridge, D.: Phenomenological Psychology Theory. Research and Practice. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Harlow (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lavie, N.: Visual feature integration and focused attention: response competition from multiple distractor features. Percept. Psychophys. 59, 543–556 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Graven, T.: When the discrimination strategy fails: revisiting the figure identity strategy, the global characteristics strategy, and the touch vision strategy. Br. J. Vis. Impair 34(2), 121–129 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ostad, S.A.: Cognitive subtraction in a developmental perspective: accuracy, speed-of- processing and strategy-use differences in normal and mathematically challenged children. Focus Learn. Prob. Math. 22, 18–31 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the Norwegian Research Council and the Norwegian Association of the Blind and Partially Sighed for funding this work; through their schemes for independent projects. A sincere thank you also to Watts Professor of Experimental Psychology, Dr. Glyn Humphreys for his interesting comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, 9 South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3UD, England

    Torø Graven

Authors
  1. Torø Graven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Torø Graven .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

    Fernando Bello

  2. The University of Electro-Communications, Chofu, Japan

    Hiroyuki Kajimoto

  3. University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA

    Yon Visell

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Graven, T. (2016). How Attention Is Allocated When Using Haptic Touch: Shape Feature Distinction and Discrimination Strategy. In: Bello, F., Kajimoto, H., Visell, Y. (eds) Haptics: Perception, Devices, Control, and Applications. EuroHaptics 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9774. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42321-0_35

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42321-0_35

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42320-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42321-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation