Top

Gepubliceerd in:

26-12-2016 | Original Article

The effects of training on tactile enumeration

Auteurs: Zahira Z. Cohen, Daniela Aisenberg, Avishai Henik

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2018

Abstract

Subitizing is a fast and accurate process of enumerating small quantities. Whether subitizing carried out in the tactile modality is under debate. We previously found a moderately increasing RT slope from one to four stimuli and a large decrease in RT for five stimuli when using one hand. Yet, a high error rate was observed, making it difficult to determine if the RT pattern found was indeed subitizing. To increase accuracy, we carried out training of the tactile enumeration task using one hand for 6 days. We compared performance in the trained and additional non-trained tasks between two groups—the 6-day training group (6DT) and the non-trained controls (C)—after three periods (1 week, 1 and 6 months after the training of the 6DT group ended). Results showed an increase in accuracy rates for both groups but a decrease in RT for the 6DT group only for the trained task. This RT improvement was present even after 6 months. Importantly, the RT slope of one-hand enumeration did not change after training, showing a moderately increased slope up to four stimuli and a decrease for five stimuli. Our study shows the training long-term effect on tactile enumeration and emphasizes the embodiment of finger counting on enumeration. Two possible enumeration processes are discussed—accelerated counting and subitizing—both based on spatial cues and pattern recognition of familiarized finger-counting patterns.

vorige artikel Did I see your hand moving? The effect of movement-related information on the Corsi block tapping task

volgende artikel Numerical magnitude affects online execution, and not planning of visuomotor control

Note that enumerating five stimuli using one hand was faster and more accurate than four stimuli. Yet, it was not included within the suggested subitizing range although it fits the definition of subitizing. It was addressed as an "embodied end effect" because of methodological constraints; there was only one variation of stimulating five fingertips so that the efficient response could have been a result of more repetitions in comparison to the other numerosities. Moreover, the enumeration process was bounded by the end of the range effect (five stimuli out of five) and end of the input surface (whole hand).

This task was conducted only once, in the retest that took place one month after training.

Note that this task is different from the task used by Cohen and Henik (2016), where only stimuli that were presented to both hands were used.

We had nine females but one female participant dropped out during the first retest and her data was excluded from the analysis.

Numerosity 1 was excluded from the analysis because it was only applied on one hand.

Due to the high accuracy rate and low variance, we could not conduct accuracy rate analysis in this task and in the numbers-reading task.

Data from two participants in the C group and one participant in the 6DT group were not included in the analysis. Their responses were not recorded due to technical problems that occurred.

Note that this task was conducted only once (in the retest 1m after training) so it did not have test results to compare it with.

An, Q., Matsuoka, Y., & Stepp, C. E. (2011). Multi-day training with vibrotactile feedback for virtual object manipulation. IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2011, 5975337. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2011.5975337.PubMed

Atkinson, J., Campbell, F., & Francis, M. (1976). The magic number 4 ± 0: A new look at visual numerosity judgements. Perception, 3, 327–334. doi:10.1068/p050327.CrossRef

Büchel, C., Price, C., Frackowiak, R., & Friston, K. (1998). Different activation patterns in the visual cortex of late and congenitally blind subjects. Brain, 121(3), 409–419. doi:10.1093/brain/121.3.409.CrossRefPubMed

Camos, V., & Tillmann, B. (2008). Discontinuity in the enumeration of sequentially presented auditory and visual stimuli. Cognition, 107(3), 1135–1143. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.002.CrossRefPubMed

Cohen, L., Celnik, P., Pascual-Leone, A., Corwell, B., Falz, L., Dambrosia, J., & Hallett, M. (1997). Functional relevance of cross-modal plasticity in blind humans. Nature, 389(6647), 180–183. doi:10.1038/38278.CrossRefPubMed

Cohen, Z. Z., & Henik, A. (2016). Effects of numerosity range on tactile and visual enumeration. Perception, 45(1–2), 83–98. doi:10.1177/0301006615614662.CrossRefPubMed

Cohen, Z. Z., Naparstek, S., & Henik, A. (2014). Tactile enumeration of small quantities using one hand. Acta Psychologica, 150, 26–34. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.03.011.CrossRefPubMed

Domahs, F., Moeller, K., Huber, S., Willmes, K., & Nuerk, H. (2010). Embodied numerosity: Implicit hand-based representations influence symbolic number processing across cultures. Cognition, 116(2), 251–266. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.007.CrossRefPubMed

Elbert, T., Pantev, C., Wienbruch, C., Rockstroh, B., & Taub, E. (1995). Increased cortical representation of the fingers of the left hand in string players. Science, 270(5234), 305–307. doi:10.1126/science.270.5234.305.CrossRefPubMed

Ferrand, L., Riggs, K. J., & Castronovo, J. (2010). Subitizing in congenitally blind adults. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17(6), 840–845. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.6.840.CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, M. H., & Brugger, P. (2011). When digits help digits: Spatial–numerical associations point to finger counting as prime example of embodied cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(October), 41–47. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00260.

Gallace, A., Tan, H., & Spence, C. (2006). Numerosity judgments for tactile stimuli distributed over the body surface. Perception, 35(2), 247–266. doi:10.1068/p5380.CrossRefPubMed

Gallace, A., Tan, H., & Spence, C. (2008). Can tactile stimuli be subitised? An unresolved controversy within the literature on numerosity judgments. Perception, 37(5), 782–800. doi:10.1068/p5767.CrossRefPubMed

Gebuis, T., & Reynvoet, B. (2011). Generating nonsymbolic number stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, 43(4), 981–986. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0097-5.CrossRefPubMed

Grant, A. C., Thiagarajah, M. C., & Sathian, K. (2000). Tactile perception in blind Braille readers: A psychophysical study of acuity and hyperacuity using gratings and dot patterns. Perception and Psychophysics, 62(2), 301–312. doi:10.3758/BF03205550.CrossRefPubMed

Harris, J. A., Harris, I. M., & Diamond, M. E. (2001). The topography of tactile learning in humans. The Journal of Neuroscience, 21(3), 1056–1061.CrossRefPubMed

Imbo, I., Vandierendonck, A., & Fias, W. (2011). Passive hand movements disrupt adults’ counting strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 201. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00201.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kaufman, E. L., Lord, M. W., Reese, T. W., & Volkmann, J. (1949). The discrimination of visual number. The American Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 498–525. doi:10.2307/1418556.CrossRefPubMed

Lambertz, N., Gizewski, E. R., de Greiff, A., & Forsting, M. (2005). Cross-modal plasticity in deaf subjects dependent on the extent of hearing loss. Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research, 25(3), 884–890. doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.09.010.CrossRefPubMed

Levänen, S., & Hamdorf, D. (2001). Feeling vibrations: Enhanced tactile sensitivity in congenitally deaf humans. Neuroscience Letters, 301(1), 75–77. doi:10.1016/S0304-3940(01)01597-X.CrossRefPubMed

Levänen, S., Jousmäki, V., & Hari, R. (1998). Vibration-induced auditory-cortex activation in a congenitally deaf adult. Current Biology, 8(15), 869–872. doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(07)00348-X.CrossRefPubMed

Mandler, G., & Shebo, B. J. (1982). Subitizing: An analysis of its component processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 111(1), 1–22. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.111.1.1.CrossRefPubMed

Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7.CrossRefPubMed

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

Pascual-Leone, A., & Torres, F. (1993). Plasticity of the sensorimotor cortex representation of the reading finger in Braille readers. Brain, 116(1), 39–52. doi:10.1093/brain/116.1.39.CrossRefPubMed

Plaisier, M. A., & Smeets, J. B. J. (2011). Haptic subitizing across the fingers. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 73(5), 1579–1585. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0124-8.CrossRef

Plaisier, M. A., Tiest, W. M. B., & Kappers, A. M. L. (2009). One, two, three, many—subitizing in active touch. Acta Psychologica, 131(2), 163–170. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.04.003.CrossRefPubMed

Plaisier, M. A., Tiest, W. M. B., & Kappers, A. M. L. (2010). Range dependent processing of visual numerosity: Similarities across vision and haptics. Experimental Brain Research, 204(4), 525–537. doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2319-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ptito, M., Moesgaard, S. M., Gjedde, A., & Kupers, R. (2005). Cross-modal plasticity revealed by electrotactile stimulation of the tongue in the congenitally blind. Brain A Journal of Neurology, 128(3), 606–614. doi:10.1093/brain/awh380.CrossRefPubMed

Rauschecker, J. (1995). Compensatory plasticity and sensory substitution in the cerebral cortex. Trends in Neurosciences, 18(1), 36–43. doi:10.1016/0166-2236(95)93948-W.CrossRefPubMed

Recanzone, G. H., Jenkins, W. M., Hradek, G. T., & Merzenich, M. M. (1992). Progressive improvement in discriminative abilities in adult owl monkeys performing a tactile frequency discrimination task. Journal of Neurophysiology, 67(5), 1015–1030.CrossRefPubMed

Riggs, K. J., Ferrand, L., Lancelin, D., Fryziel, L., Dumur, G., & Simpson, A. (2006). Subitizing in tactile perception. Psychological Science, 17(4), 271–272. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01696.x.CrossRefPubMed

Sadato, N., Pascual-Leone, A., & Grafman, J. (1996). Activation of the primary visual cortex by Braille reading in blind subjects. Nature, 380(6574), 526–528. doi:10.1038/380526a0.CrossRefPubMed

Sathian, K. (2000). Practice makes perfect: Sharper tactile perception in the blind. Neurology, 54(12), 2203–2204. doi:10.1212/WNL.54.12.2203.CrossRefPubMed

Sathian, K., & Zangaladze, A. (1997). Tactile learning is task specific but transfers between fingers. Perception and Psychophysics, 59(1), 119–128. doi:10.3758/BF03206854.CrossRefPubMed

Schmauss, D., Megerle, K., Weinzierl, A., Agua, K., Cerny, M., Schmauss, V., & Erne, H. (2015). Microsurgeons do better—tactile training might prevent the age-dependent decline of the sensibility of the hand. Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System, 20(4), 392–396. doi:10.1111/jns.12144.CrossRefPubMed

Starkey, P., & Cooper, R. G. (1995). The development of subitizing in young children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(4), 399–420. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.1995.tb00688.x.CrossRef

Sterr, A., Müller, M. M., Elbert, T., Rockstroh, B., Pantev, C., & Taub, E. (1998). Perceptual correlates of changes in cortical representation of fingers in blind multifinger Braille readers. The Journal of Neuroscience, 18(11), 4417–4423.CrossRefPubMed

Trick, L. M., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1993). What enumeration studies can show us about spatial attention: Evidence for limited capacity preattentive processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 19(2), 331–351. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.19.2.331.CrossRefPubMed

Tschentscher, N., Hauk, O., Fischer, M. H., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). You can count on the motor cortex: Finger counting habits modulate motor cortex activation evoked by numbers. NeuroImage, 59(4), 3139–3148. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.037.CrossRefPubMed

Van Boven, R. W., Hamilton, R. H., Kauffman, T., Keenan, J. P., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2000). Tactile spatial resolution in blind braille readers. Neurology, 54, 2230–2246. doi:10.1212/WNL.55.10.1597.CrossRefPubMed

Wong, M., Gnanakumaran, V., & Goldreich, D. (2011). Tactile spatial acuity enhancement in blindness: Evidence for experience-dependent mechanisms. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(19), 7028–7037. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6461-10.2011.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: The effects of training on tactile enumeration
Auteurs: Zahira Z. Cohen
Daniela Aisenberg
Avishai Henik
Publicatiedatum: 26-12-2016
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0835-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2018

The delay period as an opportunity to think about future intentions: Effects of delay length and delay task difficulty on young adult’s prospective memory performance

Pain and executive functions: a unique relationship between Stroop task and experimentally induced pain

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor cortex does not enhance the learning benefits of self-controlled feedback schedules

Numerical magnitude affects online execution, and not planning of visuomotor control

Delta plots with negative-going slopes as a potential marker of decreasing response activation in masked semantic priming

Relatedness support enhances motor learning