Touch Precision Modulates Visual Bias

Abstract

The sensory precision hypothesis holds that different seen and felt cues about the size of an object resolve themselves in favor of the more reliable modality. To examine this precision hypothesis, 60 college students were asked to look at one size while manually exploring another unseen size either with their bare fingers or, to lessen the reliability of touch, with their fingers sleeved in rigid tubes. Afterwards, the participants estimated either the seen size or the felt size by finding a match from a visual display of various sizes. Results showed that the seen size biased the estimates of the felt size when the reliability of touch decreased. This finding supports the interaction between touch reliability and visual bias predicted by statistically optimal models of sensory integration.

Even distorted felt size engenders visual-haptic integration

“…Descriptive statistics Before presenting the findings of main interest, an overview of the results is worthwhile, especially those bearing on the validity of the between-group manipulation. It was expected that the size estimates would be less precise if the sizes were explored with tubed fingers than with bare fingers (Misceo & Jones, 2017). This expectation was affirmed by inspecting the between-group standard deviations (SDs) for each stimulus size, matching modality, and practice combination (i.e., 2 × 5 × 2 × 2 mixed design).…”

“…Small discordance data Misceo and Jones (2017) tested the precision hypothesis with a 20-mm visual-haptic discordance. To assess the reproducibility of their findings, Fig.…”

“…Participants Forty-six undergraduates (21 males and 25 females) enrolled in general psychology classes volunteered for the study after the local ethics board (IRB) approved the study. Based on the effect size (η 2 p = .12) finding for the group-by-modality interaction in previous research, the G*Power application with alpha set at 5% and power set at 80% indicated that a sample size greater than 24 would adequately safeguard against false positives (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007;Misceo & Jones, 2017).…”

“…Procedure Misceo and Jones (2017) described the details of the experimental apparatus; what follows is a summary of their apparatus as adapted for the present studies. Briefly, volunteers inspected pairs of black plastic cubes.…”

“…Such response effects also have been found with optically distorted sight so as to make the separate cues to be perceived as arising from one source (Helbig & Ernst, 2007Heller et al, 1999;Hershberger & Misceo, 1996;Jovanovic & Drewing, 2014). Whether similar response effects would occur when the haptic cue is distorted was examined by Misceo and Jones (2017). They had participants see one size and feel another unseen size either with bare fingers or with fingers sleeved in rigid tubes to decrease haptic precision.…”