» Articles » PMID: 21424255

Object and Spatial Imagery Dimensions in Visuo-haptic Representations

Overview
Journal Exp Brain Res
Specialty Neurology
Date 2011 Mar 23
PMID 21424255
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Visual imagery comprises object and spatial dimensions. Both types of imagery encode shape but a key difference is that object imagers are more likely to encode surface properties than spatial imagers. Since visual and haptic object representations share many characteristics, we investigated whether haptic and multisensory representations also share an object-spatial continuum. Experiment 1 involved two tasks in both visual and haptic within-modal conditions, one requiring discrimination of shape across changes in texture, the other discrimination of texture across changes in shape. In both modalities, spatial imagers could ignore changes in texture but not shape, whereas object imagers could ignore changes in shape but not texture. Experiment 2 re-analyzed a cross-modal version of the shape discrimination task from an earlier study. We found that spatial imagers could discriminate shape across changes in texture but object imagers could not and that the more one preferred object imagery, the more texture changes impaired discrimination. These findings are the first evidence that object and spatial dimensions of imagery can be observed in haptic and multisensory representations.

Citing Articles

Haptic and visuo-haptic impairments for object recognition in children with autism spectrum disorder: focus on the sensory and multisensory processing dysfunctions.

Purpura G, Petri S, Tancredi R, Tinelli F, Calderoni S Exp Brain Res. 2024; 242(7):1731-1744.

PMID: 38819648 PMC: 11208199. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-024-06855-2.


Distinct but related abilities for visual and haptic object recognition.

Chow J, Palmeri T, Gauthier I Psychon Bull Rev. 2024; 31(5):2148-2159.

PMID: 38381302 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-024-02471-x.


Cross-Modal Interactions of the Tactile System.

Sathian K, Lacey S Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2022; 31(5):411-418.

PMID: 36408466 PMC: 9674209. DOI: 10.1177/09637214221101877.


Neural Basis of the Sound-Symbolic Crossmodal Correspondence Between Auditory Pseudowords and Visual Shapes.

McCormick K, Lacey S, Stilla R, Nygaard L, Sathian K Multisens Res. 2021; 35(1):29-78.

PMID: 34384048 PMC: 9196751. DOI: 10.1163/22134808-bja10060.


Enhanced verbal abilities in the congenitally blind.

Occelli V, Lacey S, Stephens C, Merabet L, Sathian K Exp Brain Res. 2017; 235(6):1709-1718.

PMID: 28280879 PMC: 5436932. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-017-4931-6.


References
1.
Lacey S, Campbell C . Mental representation in visual/haptic crossmodal memory: evidence from interference effects. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006; 59(2):361-76. DOI: 10.1080/17470210500173232. View

2.
Kozhevnikov M, Kosslyn S, Shephard J . Spatial versus object visualizers: a new characterization of visual cognitive style. Mem Cognit. 2005; 33(4):710-26. DOI: 10.3758/bf03195337. View

3.
Lacey S, Pappas M, Kreps A, Lee K, Sathian K . Perceptual learning of view-independence in visuo-haptic object representations. Exp Brain Res. 2009; 198(2-3):329-37. PMC: 2987670. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-009-1856-8. View

4.
Lacey S, Hall J, Sathian K . Are surface properties integrated into visuohaptic object representations?. Eur J Neurosci. 2010; 31(10):1882-8. PMC: 3066147. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07204.x. View

5.
Newell F, Ernst M, Tjan B, Bulthoff H . Viewpoint dependence in visual and haptic object recognition. Psychol Sci. 2001; 12(1):37-42. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00307. View