Object and spatial imagery dimensions in visuo-haptic representations

Abstract

Visual imagery comprises object and spatial dimensions. Both types of imagery encode shape but a key difference is that object imagers are more likely to encode surface properties than spatial imagers. Since visual and haptic object representations share many characteristics, we investigated whether haptic and multisensory representations also share an object-spatial continuum. Experiment 1 involved two tasks in both visual and haptic within-modal conditions, one requiring discrimination of shape across changes in texture, the other discrimination of texture across changes in shape. In both modalities, spatial imagers could ignore changes in texture but not shape, whereas object imagers could ignore changes in shape but not texture. Experiment 2 reanalyzed a cross-modal version of the shape discrimination task from an earlier study. We found that spatial imagers could discriminate shape across changes in texture but object imagers could not; and that the more one preferred object imagery, the more texture changes impaired discrimination. These findings are the first evidence that object and spatial dimensions of imagery can be observed in haptic and multisensory representations.

Spatial imagery in haptic shape perception

“…Object familiarity exists along a continuum, rather than a dichotomy, and the same is true for individual preferences for object and spatial imagery in both the visual (Kozhevnikov et al, 2002, 2005; Blajenkova et al, 2006; Blazhenkova et al, 2009) and the haptic (Lacey et al, 2011) modalities; it is therefore likely that the relationship between imagery type and object familiarity is also continuous rather than dichotomous, although this is yet to be tested. The present results and those of our previous studies, together with the arguments set out above, suggest that the model proposed in Lacey et al (2009) is broadly correct and well-supported, particularly by the task-specific EC analyses reported here.…”

“…In order to classify them as either object or spatial imagers, we deducted the spatial imagery score from the object imagery score for each participant: negative OSIQ difference scores therefore denoted a preference for spatial imagery while positive scores denoted a preference for object imagery (Lacey, Lin & Sathian, 2011). These difference scores were used to examine correlations between imagery preference and activation magnitude during the spIMG task.…”

“…While this schematic focuses on haptics, a similar schematic is thought to apply to vision. The LOC thus houses an object representation that is flexibly accessible, both bottom-up and top-down, and which is modality-independent (Lacey et al, 2007, 2011). …”

Enhanced verbal abilities in the congenitally blind

“…Individual preferences for object and spatial imagery are found not only in the visual, but also in the haptic modality (Lacey et al, 2011). Here, we tested spatial imagery, which emphasizes spatial relationships, using a task modified from an earlier study (Lacey et al, 2014).…”

Multisensory integration: from fundamental principles to translational research

“…Lacey et al showed that object and spatial imagery alter the dominance of texture and space in object recognition jointly for both vision and touch (Lacey et al 2011, this issue).…”