Top

Gepubliceerd in:

05-08-2021 | Original Article

Haptic object recognition based on shape relates to visual object recognition ability

Auteurs: Jason K. Chow, Thomas J. Palmeri, Isabel Gauthier

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2022

Abstract

Visual object recognition depends in large part on a domain-general ability (Richler et al. Psychol Rev 126(2): 226–251, 2019). Given evidence pointing towards shared mechanisms for object perception across vision and touch, we ask whether individual differences in haptic and visual object recognition are related. We use existing validated visual tests to estimate visual object recognition ability and relate it to performance on two novel tests of haptic object recognition ability (n = 66). One test includes complex objects that participants chose to explore with a hand grasp. The other test uses a simpler stimulus set that participants chose to explore with just their fingertips. Only performance on the haptic test with complex stimuli correlated with visual object recognition ability, suggesting a shared source of variance across task structures, stimuli, and modalities. A follow-up study using a visual version of the haptic test with simple stimuli shows a correlation with the original visual tests, suggesting that the limited complexity of the stimuli did not limit correlation with visual object recognition ability. Instead, we propose that the manner of exploration may be a critical factor in whether a haptic test relates to visual object recognition ability. Our results suggest a perceptual ability that spans at least across vision and touch, however, it may not be recruited during just fingertip exploration.

vorige artikel An implicit task reveals space-time associations along vertical and diagonal axes

volgende artikel Mnemonic attention in analogy to perceptual attention: harmony but not uniformity

The 3D models have three spatially distinct feature dimensions (nosecone, wings, and rocket) connected by a central hull. Each feature had two variants modeled and the stimulus space was created by morphing between the variants as extremes.

As trials are not randomized across participants, any possible biases due to stimuli distribution are shared across all participants. Our critical interest is variability across tasks between participants, the absolute performance within a single task is not as informative.

Tightly controlling exposure timing is difficult in haptic testing thus we opt not to vary first object exposure timing for difficulty as in vMatch-Sheinbugs, nonetheless, this is a relatively short period for haptic perception.

We believe learning on the preceding vNOMT using Sheinbugs is the main reason for this because our subjects have very comparable performance on the vNOMT with Ziggerins as in previous work (65.2% in Richler et al., 2019; 61% in Sunday et al., 2021).

Note that we completed data collection on Study 1 at the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis and are therefore unable to collect any data for haptic tests for the near future.

Amedi, A., Jacobson, G., Hendler, T., Malach, R., & Zohary, E. (2002). Convergence of visual and tactile shape processing in the human lateral occipital complex. Cerebral Cortex, 12(11), 1202–1212. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/12.11.1202CrossRefPubMed

Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(38), 14325–14329. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803390105CrossRef

Brown, W. (1910). Some experimental results in the correlation of mental abilities. British Journal of Psychology, 1904–1920, 3(3), 296–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1910.tb00207.xCrossRef

Buetti, S., Cronin, D. A., Madison, A. M., Wang, Z., & Lleras, A. (2016). Towards a better understanding of parallel visual processing in human vision: evidence for exhaustive analysis of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(6), 672–707. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000163CrossRef

Cashdan, S. (1968). Visual and haptic form discrimination under conditions of successive stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(2), 215–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025364CrossRefPubMed

Chang, T.-Y., & Gauthier, I. (2021). Domain-specific and domain-general contributions to reading musical notation. Manuscript submitted for publication

Cini, F., Ortenzi, V., Corke, P., & Controzzi, M. (2019). On the choice of grasp type and location when handing over an object. Science Robotics, 4(27), eaau9757. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aau9757CrossRefPubMed

Cooke, T., Jäkel, F., Wallraven, C., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2007). Multimodal similarity and categorization of novel, three-dimensional objects. Neuropsychologia, 45(3), 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.02.009CrossRefPubMed

Dennett, H. W., McKone, E., Tavashmi, R., Hall, A., Pidcock, M., Edwards, M., & Duchaine, B. (2012). The Cambridge car memory test: a task matched in format to the Cambridge face memory test, with norms, reliability, sex differences, dissociations from face memory, and expertise effects. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0160-2CrossRefPubMed

Desmarais, G., Meade, M., Wells, T., & Nadeau, M. (2017). Visuo-haptic integration in object identification using novel objects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(8), 2478–2498. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1382-xCrossRef

Edelman, S., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Research, 32(12), 2385–2400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(92)90102-OCrossRefPubMed

Gaissert, N., & Wallraven, C. (2012). Categorizing natural objects: a comparison of the visual and the haptic modalities. Experimental Brain Research, 216(1), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2916-4CrossRefPubMed

Gaissert, N., Wallraven, C., Bülthoff, H. H., & Bulthoff, H. H. (2010). Visual and haptic perceptual spaces show high similarity in humans. Journal of Vision, 10(11), 2. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.11.2CrossRefPubMed

Gauthier, I. (2018). Domain-specific and domain-general individual differences in visual object recognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417737151CrossRef

Goodhew, S. C., & Edwards, M. (2019). Translating experimental paradigms into individual-differences research: contributions, challenges, and practical recommendations. Consciousness and Cognition, 69, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.01.008CrossRefPubMed

Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1166–1186. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1CrossRefPubMed

Hutmacher, F., & Kuhbandner, C. (2018). Long-term memory for haptically explored objects: fidelity, durability, incidental encoding, and cross-modal transfer. Psychological Science, 29(12), 2031–2038. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618803644CrossRefPubMed

Jeffreys, H. (1961). The theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Klatzky, R. L., & Lederman, S. J. (1995). Identifying objects from a haptic glance. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(8), 1111–1123. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208368CrossRef

Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Metzger, V. A. (1985). Identifying objects by touch: an “expert system.” Perception & Psychophysics, 37(4), 299–302. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211351CrossRef

Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? https://scholar.google.de/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=EO6eQRkAAAAJ&citation_for_view=EO6eQRkAAAAJ:0EnyYjriUFMC&tzom=-60

Lacey, S., & Campbell, C. (2006). Mental representation in visual/haptic crossmodal memory: evidence from interference effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(2), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210500173232CrossRef

Lacey, S., Flueckiger, P., Stilla, R., Lava, M., & Sathian, K. (2010). Object familiarity modulates the relationship between visual object imagery and haptic shape perception. NeuroImage, 49(3), 1977–1990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.081CrossRefPubMed

Lacey, S., Stilla, R., Sreenivasan, K., Deshpande, G., & Sathian, K. (2014). Spatial imagery in haptic shape perception. Neuropsychologia, 60(1), 144–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.05.008CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Landau, B., & Leyton, M. (1999). Perception, object kind, and object naming. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 1(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010073227203CrossRef

Lederman, S. J., & Klatzky, R. L. (1987). Hand movments: a window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 342–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(87)90008-9CrossRefPubMed

Lederman, S. J., & Klatzky, R. L. (2009). Haptic perception: a tutorial. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(7), 1439–1459. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.7.1439CrossRef

McGugin, R. W., Richler, J. J., Herzmann, G., Speegle, M., & Gauthier, I. (2012). The Vanderbilt Expertise Test reveals domain-general and domain-specific sex effects in object recognition. Vision Research, 69, 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2012.07.014CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Newell, F. N., Ernst, M. O., Tjan, B. S., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2001). Viewpoint dependence in visual and haptic object recognition. Psychological Science, 12(1), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00307CrossRefPubMed

Oldfield, R. C. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4CrossRefPubMed

Palmer, S., Rosch, E., & Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. Attention and Performance, IX, 135–151.

Raven, J. (2000). The Raven’s progressive matrices: change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0735CrossRefPubMed

Richler, J. J., Wilmer, J. B., & Gauthier, I. (2017). General object recognition is specific: evidence from novel and familiar objects. Cognition, 166, 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.019CrossRefPubMed

Richler, J. J., Tomarken, A. J., Sunday, M. A., Vickery, T. J., Ryan, K. F., Floyd, R. J., Sheinberg, D., Wong, A.C.-N.-N., & Gauthier, I. (2019). Individual differences in object recognition. Psychological Review, 126(2), 226–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000129CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-XCrossRef

Rushton, J. P., Brainerd, C. J., & Pressley, M. (1983). Behavioral development and construct validity: the principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94(1), 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.94.1.18CrossRef

Sathian, K., Lacey, S., Stilla, R., Gibson, G. O., Deshpande, G., Hu, X., LaConte, S., & Glielmi, C. (2011). Dual pathways for haptic and visual perception of spatial and texture information. NeuroImage, 57(2), 462–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.001CrossRefPubMed

Snow, J. C., Strother, L., & Humphreys, G. W. (2013). Haptic shape processing in visual cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(5), 1154–1167. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00548CrossRefPubMed

Spearman, C. (1907). Demonstration of formulae for true measurement of correlation. The American Journal of Psychology, 18(2), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412408CrossRef

Spearman, C. (1910). Correlation calculated from faulty data. British Journal of Psychology, 1904–1920, 3(3), 271–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1910.tb00206.xCrossRef

Sunday, M. A., Donnelly, E. & Gauthier, I. (2018). Both fluid intelligence and visual object recognition ability relate to nodule detection in chest radiographs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(6), 755–762.

Sunday, M. A., Tomarken, A. J., Cho, S.-J., & Gauthier, I. (2021). Novel and familiar object recognition rely on the same ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

Treffner, P. J., & Turvey, M. T. (1996). Symmetry, broken symmetry, and handedness in bimanual coordination dynamics. Experimental Brain Research, 107(3), 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00230426CrossRefPubMed

Vines, B. W., Cerruti, C., & Schlaug, G. (2008). Dual-hemisphere tDCS facilitates greater improvements for healthy subjects’ non-dominant hand compared to uni-hemisphere stimulation. BMC Neuroscience, 9(1), 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-9-103CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wagenmakers, E.-J., Verhagen, J., & Ly, A. (2016). How to quantify the evidence for the absence of a correlation. Behavior Research Methods, 48(2), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0593-0CrossRefPubMed

Wang, M. W., & Stanley, J. C. (1970). Differential weighting: a review of methods and empirical studies. Review of Educational Research, 40(5), 663–705. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543040005663CrossRef

Wetzels, R., & Wagenmakers, E.-J.J. (2012). A default Bayesian hypothesis test for correlations and partial correlations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(6), 1057–1064. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0295-xCrossRef

Wilmer, J. (2008). How to use individual differences to isolate functional organization, biology, and utility of visual functions; with illustrative proposals for stereopsis. Spatial Vision, 21(6), 561–579. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856808786451408CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Woods, A. T., Moore, A., & Newell, F. N. (2008). Canonical views in haptic object perception. Perception, 37(12), 1867–1878. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6038CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Haptic object recognition based on shape relates to visual object recognition ability
Auteurs: Jason K. Chow
Thomas J. Palmeri
Isabel Gauthier
Publicatiedatum: 05-08-2021
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2022
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01560-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2022

Context dependency of time-based event-related expectations for different modalities

Mnemonic attention in analogy to perceptual attention: harmony but not uniformity

The categorical use of a continuous time representation

More or less of me and you: self-relevance augments the effects of item probability on stimulus prioritization

The fronto-central N2 but not parietal P3 reflects response inhibition in the count/no-count task

The role of action effects in motor sequence planning and execution: exploring the influence of temporal and spatial effect anticipation