Touch dominates haptic estimates of discordant visual-haptic size

Practise strengthens haptic capture.

“…Thus, the very first estimates with haptic comparisons exhibited more a compromised estimate than a modality biased one. This finding replicates Hershberger and Misceo's (1996) results of their (post hoc) first trial analysis (see Experiment 1, NoPE control group). Fishkin, Pishkin, and Stahl (1975) also reported similar findings.…”

Visual and haptic influence on perception of stimulus size

“…Hershberger and Misceo (1996) have suggested that the dominant modality tends to correspond "to the type of comparison stimuli used by the observers to render their size estimates" (p. 1130). Experiments 3 and 4 were designed to test for effects of the modality of choice set.…”

“…Consequently, they may ignore important information present at the conflicting modality-vision, in this case. Although there is some evidence to suggest that the mode to which the choice set is presented is not a crucial factor (e.g., Easton & Moran, 1978), more recent research indicates that whichever modality is used for exploring comparison stimuli is also the mode that tends to dominate (Hershberger & Misceo, 1996). This possibility was taken into account in the present research by providing sets of visual and haptic choice stimuli across different experiments, thus testing for effects attributable to the modality used to select choice squares.…”

“…In pilot studies, the three stimuli were found to be the minimum number necessary to An interesting aspect of some experiments on sensory discrepancy is the use of a unimodal choice set. Hershberger and Misceo (1996) described an experiment conducted by Klein (1966) in which subjects simultaneously viewed and felt a peg made from two different-sized squares-one presented visually, the other tactually. While visually and tactually examining the peg, the subjects used their free hand to select a haptic match.…”

Watching a Cursor Distorts Haptically Guided Reproduction of Mouse Movement.

“…The interactions have not always been resolved entirely in favor of vision. Instead the relative contributions of the modalities have been found to vary with a variety of factors such as age (Misceo, Hershberger, & Mancini, 1999), instructions (e.g., Lederman, Thorne, & Jones, 1986), the response modality (e.g., Heller, Calcaterra, Green, & Brown, 1999;Hershberger & Misceo, 1996), and the degree of noise in the inputs (e.g., Ernst & Banks, 2002), and with ancillary information such as sight of the hands (Heller et al, 1999). Ferrel, Leifflen, Orliaguet, and Coello (2000) found that visualhaptic discrepancies affected movement.…”