Readability of Braille as a function of three spacing variables.

Meyers, Ernest; Ethington, Doris; Ashcroft, Samuel C.

doi:10.1037/h0041169

Cited by 18 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 2 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, most of the RFs of mechanoreceptors in the inferior alveolar nerve were stimulated with five velocities (viz., those used in previous psychophysical studies of human direction discrimination: 0.5, 2, 6, 12, and 32 cm/set; Essick et al, 1988, 199 la). Thus, the range of velocities employed in the present study was narrower than those employed in monkey and cat experiments (Whitsel et al, 1972;Young et al, 1978;Franzen et al, 1984;Greenspan, 1992) but encompassed that used by human subjects to explore and discriminate the texture of rigid grooved surfaces (e.g., range l-25 cm/set, Lederman, 1974; mean 11.5-l 8.5 cm/s, peak 18-29 cm/set, Morley et al, 1983; range 2.5-l 5 cm/set, Sinclair and Burton,199 1; see also Meyers et al, 1958, andLamb, 1983a). Over the velocity range tested, the human data were grossly similar to that reported for the monkey and cat.…”

Section: Eflect Of Velocity On Mean Neural Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Receptor encoding of moving tactile stimuli in humans. II. The mean response of individual low-threshold mechanoreceptors to motion across the receptive field

Essick

Edin

1995

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mean firing rate evoked in 70 cutaneous, low-threshold mechanoreceptors in the human median, radial, and inferior alveolar nerves by stimulus motion across the skin was quantitatively studied. Moving stimuli, controlled for velocity, direction, and length of skin traversed, were provided by a servo-controlled motor that carried a brush across the receptive field. Each unit was studied with stimuli delivered at multiple velocities from 0.5 to 32 cm/sec in at least two opposing directions. A power function provided an excellent description of the MFR-versus-velocity relationship. The exponent n was interpreted to reflect the receptor's sensitivity to changes in stimulus velocity, and the multiplicative constant c, the predicted response to stimuli moving at 1.0 cm/sec. The fast adapting mechanoreceptors exhibited higher sensitivity to stimulus velocity than the slowly adapting mechanoreceptors. The mean velocity at which the fast adapting units were predicted to first respond to movement was also higher. Estimates of n, c, or both differed significantly for stimuli delivered in opposing directions for more than 70% of the mechanoreceptors. No direction of motion consistently led to power function parameters with higher values so as to suggest a “preferred” regional direction of motion for the entire population. Neither the directional difference in n nor c could be attributed to directional differences in the forces applied across the receptive fields. These findings suggest that information about velocity and direction is represented in the mean firing rate responses evoked in the population of mechanoreceptors activated by a moving tactile stimulus.

show abstract

Section: Eflect Of Velocity On Mean Neural Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Receptor encoding of moving tactile stimuli in humans. II. The mean response of individual low-threshold mechanoreceptors to motion across the receptive field

Essick

Edin

1995

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is known that the discriminability of the Braille character set is better than that of embossed Roman letters (Bledsoe 1972;Loomis 1985) and (given the restrictions of a 2 x 3 array) it appears to be near optimal in terms of dot spacing, dot height, etc. (Meyers et al 1958;Loomis 1985). It has Qff))rint requests to : J.R. Phillips (address see above) been suggested that the reason Braille characters are more discriminable than other (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Representation of braille characters in human nerve fibres

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have used microneurographic techniques in human subjects to record mechanoreceptive afferent responses to standard Braille characters scanned across the finger pads. Responses from all four mechanoreceptor classes (FA I, FA II, SA I and SA II) have been reconstructed to form two-dimensional Spatial Event Plots (raster plots) of the Braille alphabet. Both the SA I and FA I responses resolve the dot patterns of Braille characters with sufficient fidelity that the representations of the individual characters can be recognized visually. Responses from SA II and FA II afferents do not resolve the Braille characters. We believe that the Spatial Event Plots derived from SA I and FA I responses closely approximate the images that are transmitted within a human nerve during Braille reading.

show abstract

“…Numerous early studies in the field of visual impairment investigated many aspects of braille reading. Some studies explored the reading rates of braille readers (Crandell & Wallace, 1974;Foulke, 1964;Grunwald, 1966;Lowenfeld, B., Abel, G. L., & Halten, P. H., 1969;McBride, 1974;Nolan & Kederis, 1969;Olson, Harlow, & Williams, 1975); the recognizability of braille characters, letters, and words (Burklen, 1932;Meyers, Ethington, & Ashcroft, 1958;Nolan & Kederis, 1969;Uniform Type Committee,' 1907, 1908, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913; and the learning of braille characters (Newman et al, 1982;Newman, Hall, Foster, & Gupta, 1984). Other studies examined the implications of modifying the braille code (Lorimer & Tobin, 1979;Martin & Sheffield, 1976); reading strategies (Millar, 1977), braille teaching strategies (Birns, 1976;Caton & Bradley, 1978-1979; and the effects of hand movements (Olson et al, 1975).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Print and Braille Reading Rates on Three Reading Tasks

Wetzel¹,

Knowlton

2000

Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comparison of the reading rates of 24 adult print readers and 23 adult braille readers on three reading tasks—oral reading, silent reading, and studying—found significant differences as a function of reading group and reading task but no group-by-task interaction. The relative closeness of the two groups’ reading rates indicates that some modifications in the use of unlimited time may be necessary to ensure the accuracy of evaluations.

show abstract

Readability of Braille as a function of three spacing variables.

Cited by 18 publications

References 2 publications

Receptor encoding of moving tactile stimuli in humans. II. The mean response of individual low-threshold mechanoreceptors to motion across the receptive field

Receptor encoding of moving tactile stimuli in humans. II. The mean response of individual low-threshold mechanoreceptors to motion across the receptive field

Representation of braille characters in human nerve fibres

A Comparison of Print and Braille Reading Rates on Three Reading Tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About