Four experiments examined the influence of categorical information and visual experience on the identification of tangible pictures, produced with a raised-line drawing kit. In Experiment 1, prior categorical information aided to accuracy and speed of picture identification. In a second experiment, categorical information helped subjects when given after the examination of each picture, but before any attempt at identification. The benefits of categorical information were also obtained in another group of subjects, when the superordinate categories were named at the start of the experiment. In a third experiment, a multiple-choice picture recognition task was used to eliminate the difficulty of naming from the picture-identification task. The multiple-choice data showed higher accuracy and shorter latencies when compared with identification tasks. A fourth experiment evaluated picture identification in blindfolded sighted, early, and late blind participants. Congenitally blind subjects showed lower performance than did the other groups, despite the availability of prior categorical information. The data were consistent with theories that assume that visual imagery aids tactual perception in naming raised line drawings. It was proposed that part of the difficulty in identification of raised line pictures may derive from problems in locating picture categories or names, and not merely in perception of the patterns.

Wesought to clarify the causes of the tactual horizontal-vertical illusion, where vertical lines are overestimated as compared with horizontals in L and inverted-T figures. Experiment 1 did not use L or inverted-T figures, but examined continuous or bisected horizontal and vertical lines. It was expected that bisected lines would be perceived as shorter than continuous lines, as in the inverted-T figure in the horizontal-vertical illusion. Experiment 1 showed that the illusion could not be explained solely by bisection, since illusory effects were similar for continuous and bisected vertical and horizontal lines. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that the illusory effects were dependent upon stimulus size and scanning strategy. Overestimation of the vertical was minimal or absent for the smallest patterns, where it was proposed that stimuli were explored by finger movement, with flexion at the wrist. Larger stimuli induce whole-arm motions, and illusory effects were found in conditions requiring radial arm motion. The illusion was weakened or eliminated in Experiment 4 when subjects were forced to examine stimuli with finger-and-hand motion alone, that is, their elbows were kept down on the table surface, and they were prevented from making radial arm motions. Whole-arm motion damaged performance and induced perceptual error. The experiments support the hypothesis that overestimation of the vertical in the tactual horizontal-vertical illusion derives from radial scanning by the entire arm.

In three experiments the production and interpretation of perspective drawings by blind and sighted subjects were examined. Blindfolded sighted, early-blind, and late-blind subjects first attempted to produce raised-line drawings of a surface at a number of angles-0 degree (panel horizontal), -22.5 degrees, -45 degrees, -67.5 degrees, and -90 degrees (vertical). Congenitally blind subjects did not show foreshortening in their naive raised-line drawings. However, the congenitally blind subjects were able to understand aspects of perspective, and performed as well as the blindfolded sighted and late-blind subjects in a subsequent multiple-choice task. Subjects in the multiple-choice task were required to match tangible perspective drawings to a slanted board. Although the three groups performed alike, both groups of blind subjects performed better than blindfolded sighted controls on judgments involving drawings of the vertical panel in the second experiment. In a final experiment, in which vision and touch were compared, sighted subjects were required to adjust the angle of the panel to match foreshortened, perspective drawings. This experiment yielded significantly better performance with vision than with touch, but only for drawings of the board at the vertical orientation. The results suggested that congenitally blind people may benefit from haptic exposure to raised-line configurations representing geometric perspective.

No abstract