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.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Leverne’s Test for Equality of Variances = 0.013.
- 10.
“An angle has two lines.” “When the shape has more than two lines, then it is a curve (…).”
- 11.
- 12.
The touch vision strategy was not included in Graven’s [25] statistical analyses.
- 13.
References
Oxford Dictionaries (2015). http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
Heller, M.A.: Gentaz, E: Psychology of Touch and Blindness. Psychology Press, New York (2014)
Millar, S.: Space and Sense. Psychology Press, Hove (2008)
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)
Pathak, K., Pring, L.: Tactual picture recognition in congenitally blind and sighted children. Appl. Cogn. Psych. 3, 337–350 (1989)
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)
Lavie, N.: Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. J. Exp. Psychol.-Hum. Percept. Perform. 21, 451–468 (1995)
Lederman, S.J., Browse, R.A., Klatzky, R.L.: Haptic processing of spatially distributed information. Percept. Psychophys. 44, 222–232 (1988)
Millar, S.: Strategy choices by young Braille readers. Perception 13, 567–579 (1984)
Kennedy, J.M., Bai, J.: Haptic pictures: fit judgements predict identification, recognition memory, and confidence. Perception 31, 1013–1026 (2002)
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)
Lavie, N., Tsal, Y.: Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Percept. Psychophys. 56, 183–197 (1994)
Wolfe, J., Robertson, L.: From Perception to Consciousness: Searching with Anne Treisman. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)
Treisman, A.M., Gelade, G.: A feature-integration theory of attention. Cogn. Psychol. 12, 97–136 (1980)
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)
Treisman, A.: Features and objects: the fourteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. Q. J. Exp. Psychol.-A. 40, 201–237 (1988)
Treisman, A., Vieira, A., Hayes, A.: Automaticity and preattentive processing. Am. J. Psychol. 105, 341–362 (1992)
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)
Plaisier, M.A., Bergmann Tiest, W.M., Kappers, A.M.L.: Haptic pop-out in a hand sweep. Acta Psychol. 128, 368–377 (2008)
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)
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)
van Polanen, V., Bergmann Tiest, W.M., Kappers, A.M.L.: Haptic pop-out of movable stimuli. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 74, 204–215 (2012)
Sathian, K.: Practice makes perfect: sharper tactile perception in the blind. Neurology 54, 2203–2204 (2000)
Treisman, A.M., Paterson, R.: Emergent features, attention, and object perception. J. Exp. Psychol.-Hum. Percept. Perform. 10, 12–31 (1984)
Graven, T.: How blind individuals discriminate braille characters: an identification and comparison of three discrimination strategies. Br. J. Vis. Impair. 33, 80–95 (2015)
Ostad, S.A.: Strategic competence: issues of task-specific strategies in arithmetic. Nordic Stud. Math. Educ. 5, 7–32 (1997)
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
Aanstoos, C.M.: The think aloud method in descriptive research. J. Phenomenol. Psychol. 14, 243–266 (1983)
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)
Graven, T.: Seeing Through Touch: When Touch Replaces Vision as the Dominant Sense Modality. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller AG & Co., Saarbrücken (2009)
Spence, C., Nicholls, M.E.R., Driver, J.: The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality. Percept. Psychophys. 63, 330–336 (2001)
Moon Literacy: What is Moon? (2015). http://www.moonliteracy.org.uk/whatis.htm
Heller, M.A., Clyburn, S.: Global versus local processing in haptic perception of form. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 31, 574–576 (1993)
Lakatos, S., Marks, L.E.: Haptic form perception: relative salience of local and global features. Percept. Psychophys. 61, 895–908 (1999)
Soechting, J.F., Song, W., Flanders, M.: Haptic feature extraction. Cereb. Cortex 16, 1168–1180 (2006)
Persaud, N., McLeod, P., Cowey, A.: Post-decision wagering objectively measures awareness. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 257–261 (2007)
Dienes, Z., Scott, R.: Measuring unconscious knowledge: distinguishing structural knowledge and judgment knowledge. Psychol. Res. 69, 338–351 (2005)
Braille Cell Dimensions (2015). http://www.tiresias.org/research/reports/braille_cell.htm
Landridge, D.: Phenomenological Psychology Theory. Research and Practice. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Harlow (2007)
Lavie, N.: Visual feature integration and focused attention: response competition from multiple distractor features. Percept. Psychophys. 59, 543–556 (1997)
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)
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)
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
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)