Reference frames and haptic perception of orientation: Body and head tilt effects on the oblique effect

Luyat, Marion; Gentaz, Édouard; Corte, Tony Regia; Guerraz, Michel

doi:10.3758/bf03194419

Cited by 84 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(45 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies of kinesthetic perception have shown the existence of biases in the estimation of distances in tactile-kinesthetic tasks such as blindfolded triangle completion (Klatzky, 1999). The geometry of perceived haptic space can be distorted by temporal factors (Dupin, Hayward, & Wexler, 2015;Lederman, Klatzky, Collins, & Wardell, 1987;Yusoh, Nomura, Sakamoto, & Iwabu, 2012), movement speed (Kazunori, Akinori, Daisuke, & Ito, 2006;Viviani, Baud-Bovy, & Redolfi, 1997;Wapner, Weinberg, Glick, & Rand, 1967;Whitsel et al, 1986), memory (Chieffi, Conson, & Carlomagno, 2004;Gentaz & Hatwell, 1999;Millar & Al-Attar, 2004) and the configuration of the body, notably the hands (Kaas & Mier, 2006) or the head and body (Luyat, Gentaz, Corte, & Guerraz, 2001). Biases in the perception of orientation have been observed when participants have to orient a bar in order to make it parallel in threedimensional space to another bar (Kappers, 1999;Kappers & Koenderink, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalized movement representation in haptic perception.

Dupin

Hayward

Wexler

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extraction of spatial information by touch often involves exploratory movements, with tactile and kinesthetic signals combined to construct a spatial haptic percept. However, the body has many tactile sensory surfaces that can move independently, giving rise to the source binding problem: when there are multiple tactile signals originating from sensory surfaces with multiple movements, are the tactile and kinesthetic signals bound to one another? We studied haptic signal combination by applying the tactile signal to a stationary fingertip while another body part (the other hand or a foot) or a visual target moves, and using a task that can only be done if the tactile and kinesthetic signals are combined. We found that both direction and speed of movement transfer across limbs, but only direction transfers between visual target motion and the tactile signal. In control experiments, we excluded the role of explicit reasoning or knowledge of motion kinematics in this transfer. These results demonstrate the existence of 2 motion representations in the haptic system-one of direction and another of speed or amplitude-that are both source-free or unbound from their sensory surface of origin. These representations may well underlie our flexibility in haptic perception and sensorimotor control. Public Significance StatementHaptic perception or active touch involves 2 types of sensory signals: tactile sensations and proprioceptive or motor signals about the movement of the fingertip or other sensory surface. While these signals usually come from the same limb, we have recently shown that tactile signals from 1 hand can be combined with proprioceptive movement information from the other hand, a phenomenon that we call "haptic transfer." Here we extend these results by showing that haptic transfer can occur between the feet and hands. Additionally, movement signals in haptic transfer can even come from eye movements or visual motion, but in this case less information is transferred than between limbs. These results indicate that, in haptic perception, information about the movement of the sensory surface is represented in a simplified way, without reference to the actual body part involved. Additionally, our results indicate that signals about movement direction might be represented differently than those about speed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalized movement representation in haptic perception.

Dupin

Hayward

Wexler

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, orientation discrimination thresholds increase from approximately 0.5° (when presenting the visual stimulus along the retinal vertical) to 1.5-2.0° when the visual stimulus is roll-tilted 30° (Orban et al 1984), while we observed greater variability for the earth-fixed paradigm (~3° in upright position and ~4° in 75° RED). Second, the oblique effect decreases or even disappears when the head is roll-tilted, (Luyat et al 2001;McIntyre et al 2001). …”

Section: For Visually-guided Self-adjustments Extra-retinal Cues Arementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, trial-to-trial variability of alignment tasks increases independently from the presence / absence of retinal input when the subject is roll-tilted (Tarnutzer et al 2012), so increased variability in our tasks cannot be explained solely on the basis of variability of torsional eye position. At the same time, the oblique effect diminishes when the head is rolltilted (Luyat et al 2001;McIntyre et al 2001), mostly due to increased discrimination thresholds along the principal axes. Therefore, the accuracy by which the roll orientation of a visual stimulus on the retina can be sensed becomes independent from its retinal roll orientation (in relation to the retinal cardinal axes).…”

Section: For Visually-guided Self-adjustments Extra-retinal Cues Arementioning

confidence: 99%

Visually guided adjustments of body posture in the roll plane

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Body position relative to gravity is continuously updated to prevent falls. Therefore, the brain integrates input from the otoliths, truncal graviceptors, proprioception and vision. Without visual cues estimated direction of gravity mainly depends on otolith input and becomes more variable with increasing roll-tilt. Contrary, the discrimination threshold for object orientation shows little modulation with varying roll orientation of the visual stimulus. Providing earth-stationary visual cues, this retinal input may be sufficient to perform self-adjustment tasks successfully, with resulting variability being independent of whole-body roll orientation. We compared conditions with informative (earth-fixed) and non-informative (body-fixed) visual cues. If the brain uses exclusively retinal input (if earth-stationary) to solve the task, trial-to-trial variability will be independent from the subject's roll orientation. Alternatively, central integration of both retinal (earth-fixed) and extra-retinal inputs will lead to increasing variability when roll-tilted. Subjects, seated on a motorized chair, were instructed to (1) align themselves parallel to an earth-fixed line oriented earth-vertical or roll-tilted 75°clockwise; (2) move a body-fixed line (aligned with the body-longitudinal axis or roll-tilted 75°counter-clockwise to it) by adjusting their body position until the line was perceived earth-vertical. At 75°right-ear-down position, variability increased significantly (p < 0.05) compared to upright in both paradigms, suggesting that, despite the earth-stationary retinal cues, extra-retinal input is integrated. Self-adjustments in the roll-tilted position were significantly (p < 0.01) more precise for earth-fixed cues than for body-fixed cues, underlining the importance of earth-stable visual cues when estimates of gravity become more variable with increasing whole-body roll. ABSTRACTBody position relative to gravity is continuously updated to prevent falls. Therefore the brain integrates input from the otoliths, truncal graviceptors, proprioception and vision.Without visual cues estimated direction of gravity mainly depends on otolith input and becomes more variable with increasing roll-tilt. Contrary, the discrimination threshold for object orientation shows little modulation with varying roll orientation of the visual stimulus.Providing earth-stationary visual cues, this retinal input may be sufficient to perform selfadjustment tasks successfully, with resulting variability being independent of whole-body roll orientation. We compared conditions with informative (earth-fixed) and non-informative (body-fixed) visual cues. If the brain uses exclusively retinal input (if earth-stationary) to solve the task, trial-to-trial variability will be independent from the subject's roll orientation.Alternatively, central integration of both retinal (earth-fixed) and extra-retinal inputs will lead to increasing variability when roll-tilted. Subjects, seated on a motorized chair, were instructed to 1) align themse...

show abstract

“…Spatial information is always specified with respect to some frame of reference (Howard, 1982) and many studies on the perception of orientations have focused on identifying it (Kappers, 1999(Kappers, , 2003(Kappers, , 2004Luyat et al, 2001;Volcic, van Rheede, Postma, & Kappers, 2008;Volcic et al, 2007). However, the concept of reference frame per se does not explain why or how directional anisotropies occur within the possibly rotated subjective frame of reference since it fails to explain what might cause orientation-specific variations in the accuracy and precision of the responses such as the directional bias toward the diagonal.…”

Section: Limits Of the Extended Ca Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, the focus in the latter tasks has been on the variable error and, in this context, the term oblique effect usually refers to a decrease in precision at the oblique orientations relative to the cardinal (vertical or horizontal) orientations, which has been observed both in the visual (reviews in Gentaz & Ballaz, 2000;Gentaz & Junker-Tschopp, 2002) and haptic modalities (e.g. Appelle & Countryman, 1986;Gentaz & Hatwell, 1995, 1999Lechelt, Eliuk, & Tanne, 1976;Lechelt & Verenka, 1980;Luyat, Gentaz, Corte, & Guerraz, 2001). Still, it is noteworthy that, in the visual modality, several studies have reported orientation-dependent biases in orientation tasks that don't involve the transfer of orientation information between two different positions (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The perception and representation of orientations: A study in the haptic modality

Baud-Bovy

Gentaz

2012

Acta Psychologica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines the haptic perception of orientations in the frontal plane in order to identify the nature of their representation. Blindfolded participants inserted the tip of the index finger into a thimble mounted on the extremity of a haptic interface and manually explored the orientation of a "virtual rod". After a short delay, participants had to reproduce the scanned orientation with the same hand without the guidance of the virtual rod. The analysis of the systematic errors showed that the recalled orientations were markedly biased toward the nearest diagonal in each quadrant with the exception of the orientations nearest to the vertical, which were biased toward the vertical. The variable error was greater for the oblique orientations than for the horizontal or vertical orientation. These results are interpreted with the Category-Adjustment model, which posits that orientations are categorically represented. We show that it is necessary to assume the existence of vertical and horizontal categories in addition to the previously postulated oblique categories to predict the error patterns observed in the present and former studies. The similarity of the error patterns in the visual and haptic modalities suggests that a common mechanism is at play in perceiving and reproducing orientations in both sensory modalities.

show abstract

Reference frames and haptic perception of orientation: Body and head tilt effects on the oblique effect

Cited by 84 publications

References 39 publications

Generalized movement representation in haptic perception.

Generalized movement representation in haptic perception.

Visually guided adjustments of body posture in the roll plane

The perception and representation of orientations: A study in the haptic modality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About