The ability to report the temporal order of 2 tactile stimuli (1 applied to each hand) has been shown to decline when the arms are crossed over compared with when they are uncrossed. However, these effects have only been measured when temporal order was reported by stimulus location. It is unknown whether this spatial manipulation of the body affects all tactile temporal order judgments (TOJs) or only those judgments that are spatially defined. The authors examined the effect of crossing the arms on tactile TOJs when stimuli were identified by either spatial (location) or nonspatial (frequency or duration) attributes. Spatial TOJs were significantly impaired when the arms were in crossed compared with uncrossed postures, but there was no effect of posture when order was judged by nonspatial attributes. Task-dependent modulation of the effects of posture was also evident when response complexity was reduced to go/no-go responses. These results suggest that crossing the arms impairs tactile localization and thus spatial TOJs. However, the data also suggest that localization is not a necessary precursor when temporal order can be computed by nonspatial means.

In two experiments, we investigated the automatic integration of touch across the fingers. Participants made judgments about the roughness of sequences of textures presented to one finger while simultaneously feeling textures of varying roughness with another finger (the distractor digit) on the same hand. Integration across digits was evident when the thumb and index finger were used together, whereas there was a general disruption of attention when the thumb and little finger were used together. In addition, interference was greater when the distractor digit was above the touched surface than when it was below the touched surface. These results suggest that there is integration of information across fingers when people feel textures, but that this integration pattern does not conform to a spread of activation across somatosensory maps.

No abstract

We investigated the effect of correlation in background noise on the ability of participants to detect a kinaesthetic target on the index fingers of their hands. Participants had to judge whether the target (a smoothed ramp with quarter-sine onset and offset), was on the left or right finger (experiments 1 and 2). These targets were embedded in noise generated by pseudo-random up-down movements of both the left and right fingers. Positive correlation between the noise on the left and right fingers aided discrimination of the target signal relative to when the noise was uncorrelated. However, this benefit of positive correlation was subject to temporal limitations and diminished with increasing lag between the noise on the fingers (experiment 2). Tests of explicit detection of correlation in kinaesthetic noise (experiment 3) showed a similar pattern, with detection of correlation decreasing with the temporal lag between the noise on the fingers. The results suggest that kinaesthetic signal detection involves sensory integration across the fingers within a limited temporal window.

Roughness perception through fingertip contact with a textured surface can involve spatial and temporal cues from skin indentation and vibration respectively. Both types of cue may be affected by contact forces when feeling a surface and we ask whether, on a given trial, discrimination performance relates to contact forces. We examine roughness discrimination performance in a standard psychophysical method (2-interval forced choice, in which the participant identifies which of two spatial textures formed by parallel grooves feels rougher) while continuously measuring the normal and tangential forces applied by the index finger. Fourteen participants discriminated spatial gratings in fine (spatial period of 320–580 micron) and coarse (1520–1920 micron) ranges using static pressing or sliding contact of the index finger. Normal contact force (mean and variability) during pressing or sliding had relatively little impact on accuracy of roughness judgments except when pressing on surfaces in the coarse range. Discrimination was better for sliding than pressing in the fine but not the coarse range. In contrast, tangential force fluctuations during sliding were strongly related to roughness judgment accuracy.