Mirror reversal by blind subjects in cutaneous perception and motor production of letters and numbers

Shimojo, Shinsuke; Sato, Masato; Parsons, Lawrence M.; Torii, Shuki

doi:10.3758/bf03208049

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It does not necessarily mean that the stimulated surfaces are viewed by a kind of "eye." Therefore, the head-axes hypothesis is in accordance with a recent finding by Shimojo et al (1989) that the congenitally blind exhibit the same response pat-…”

Section: Head-axes Hypothesis: Unifying the Two Framessupporting

confidence: 79%

Importance of head axes in perception of cutaneous patterns drawn on vertical body surfaces

Sekiyama

1991

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The "disembodied eye" phenomenon (Corcoran, 1977), that is, the observation that a cutaneous (tactile) pattern is perceived as right-left reversed or not, depending on whether it is presented on the forehead or the back of the head, was extended by incorporating a top-bottom axis into a model of the frame of reference in cutaneous-pattern perception. In two experiments, 21 and 15 subjects were asked to report the letter perceived when one of four letters (p, q, b, or d) was tactually presented. The sites studied were vertical body surfaces (Experiment 1) and hands alongside the body (Experiment 2). The positions for the presentations varied according to the height (head, shoulder, waist, thigh, and calflevels) and the orientation ofthe surface: forward-, backward-, and side-facing. Although the results for the head and back surfaces supported the notion of a "disembodied eye" behind the individual, other frames were needed: On the forward-facing surfaces below the waist, the prevailing perception was 180 0 rotated, as if the subjects were looking at the surface by bending forward. An additional frame of reference was introduced for the forwardfacing surfaces in lower positions and was described as head axes projected onto body surfaces within the possibility of actual body movements.

show abstract

Section: Head-axes Hypothesis: Unifying the Two Framessupporting

confidence: 79%

Importance of head axes in perception of cutaneous patterns drawn on vertical body surfaces

Sekiyama

1991

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, there was little or no cost of transfer when there was no change of the sensed surfaces between learning and testing. For cross-modal recognition, performance was better when the front view from the visual representation matched the back view from the haptic representation than when the views remained fixed across modalities (see also Shimojo, Sasaki, Parsons, & Torii, 1989). Consequently, performance was not significantly different between the within-modality condition without a change in view and the across-modalities condition with a 180°rotation in either the horizontal or the vertical axis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Viewpoint Dependence in Visual and Haptic Object Recognition

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-On the whole, people recognize objects best when they see the objects from a familiar view and worse when they see the objects from views that were previously occluded from sight. Unexpectedly, we found haptic object recognition to be viewpoint-specific as well, even though hand movements were unrestricted. This viewpoint dependence was due to the hands preferring the back "view" of the objects. Furthermore, when the sensory modalities (visual vs. haptic) differed between learning an object and recognizing it, recognition performance was best when the objects were rotated back-to-front between learning and recognition. Our data indicate that the visual system recognizes the front view of objects best, whereas the hand recognizes objects best from the back.People explore and navigate through their environment mainly using sight and touch. In order to guide actions and interactions with objects, information acquired from the visual and the haptic systems must converge to form a coherent percept. What might be the nature of the representations underlying each sensory system, in order to allow this convergence? If the visual and haptic representations of an object are qualitatively different, a translation process must be involved for the two systems to communicate. The presence of a translator implies that moving information between the visual and haptic systems can be inefficient. In the experiments reported in this article, we studied the nature of object representation in each sensory system and the interaction between these systems. Specifically, we considered whether representations in each system are either dependent on or invariant to viewpoint.

show abstract

“…Study Head orientation Left-right axis Corresponding response Proportion Forehead Allen & Rudy, 1970Corcoran, 1977Deroualle et al, 2017Duke, 1966Ferrè et al, 2014Holmes et al, 1968Itakura, 1994Krech & Crutchfield, 1958Mankin & Weber, 1982Mori, 2005Mori, 2012Natsoulas & Dubanovski, 1964Parsons & Shimojo, 1987Sekiyama, 1991Shimojo et al, 1989 Looking Back Allen & Rudy, 1970Corcoran, 1977Deroualle et al, 2017Duke, 1966Mankin & Weber, 1982Natsoulas & Dubanovski, 1964 Parsons & Shimojo, 1987Sekiyama, 1991Shimojo et al, 1989 Looking Left side Mankin & Weber, 1982Mori, 2012Natsoulas & Dubanovski, 1964Natsoulas, 1966Parsons & Shimojo, 1987 Looking…”

Section: Surfacementioning

confidence: 99%

A unity of the self or a multiplicity of locations? How the graphesthesia task sheds light on the role of spatial perspectives in bodily self-consciousness

Arnold

Spence

Auvray

2017

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrating multisensory stimuli from a self-centred perspective is crucial for the unity of the self. On the other hand, understanding external space and communicating spatial knowledge with others necessitate the adoption of decentred perspectives. How do we juggle these two requirements? In this article, we review those studies that have used the graphesthesia task in order to investigate the perspectives that people adopt when interpreting ambiguous tactile symbols (e.g., b, d, p, and q). With such ambiguous symbols, self-centred and decentred perspectives conflict with one another. The results reviewed here reveal that the perspectives adopted vary significantly with spatial, personal, and interpersonal factors. Such findings suggest that the self can adopt a multiplicity of spatial locations. However, the unity of the self can partly be explained by the predominance of a head-centred perspective. On the other hand, perspective-taking abilities contribute to the distinction between self and others, reinforcing self-consciousness.

show abstract

Mirror reversal by blind subjects in cutaneous perception and motor production of letters and numbers

Cited by 18 publications

References 42 publications

Importance of head axes in perception of cutaneous patterns drawn on vertical body surfaces

Importance of head axes in perception of cutaneous patterns drawn on vertical body surfaces

Viewpoint Dependence in Visual and Haptic Object Recognition

A unity of the self or a multiplicity of locations? How the graphesthesia task sheds light on the role of spatial perspectives in bodily self-consciousness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About