2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.06.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Similarity and categorization: From vision to touch

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
16
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
4
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our behavioral results confirm those of previous studies [Cooke et al, ; Gaißert et al, ; Gaißert and Wallraven, ; Gaißert et al, ; Wallraven et al, ], showing that visually‐ trained object shape knowledge clearly transfers to the haptic domain. Indeed, all participants showed above‐chance performance in the haptic test.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Our behavioral results confirm those of previous studies [Cooke et al, ; Gaißert et al, ; Gaißert and Wallraven, ; Gaißert et al, ; Wallraven et al, ], showing that visually‐ trained object shape knowledge clearly transfers to the haptic domain. Indeed, all participants showed above‐chance performance in the haptic test.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…A high correlation in the weighing of texture and shape cues for discriminating objects was also shown for such different exploratory procedures as contour following (serial exploration) and gripping (parallel exploration) 2 . Such similar weighting across exploration modes is useful for building stable high-level viewpoint-independent shape representations across the senses, as have been shown for vision and touch 31 32 33 34 . If shape perception depends too much on the exploration mode used, such high-level shape representations could hardly be consistent.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…From behavioral studies, we know that participants trained in the visual modality to recognize novel objects show partial or near-complete transfer to the haptic modality, and vice versa (Lawson, 2009; Lacey, Peters, & Sathian, 2007; Norman, Norman, Clayton, Lianekhammy, & Zielke, 2004), and that object similarity is judged in similar ways across modalities (Gaissert & Wallraven, 2012; Gaissert, Bülthoff, & Wallraven, 2011; Gaissert, Wallraven, & Bülthoff, 2010; Cooke, Jäkel, Wallraven, & Bülthoff, 2007; Cooke, Kannengiesser, Wallraven, & Bülthoff, 2006). Those findings suggest that participants base their similarity judgments on a multisensory representation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%