Object and spatial imagery dimensions in visuo-haptic representations

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.

[1]  Diane Pecher,et al.  Concepts are not represented by conscious imagery , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[2]  Maria Kozhevnikov,et al.  Trade-off in object versus spatial visualization abilities: Restriction in the development of visual-processing resources , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  S. Lacey,et al.  Are surface properties integrated into visuohaptic object representations? , 2010, The European journal of neuroscience.

[4]  Michael A. Motes,et al.  Object-Spatial Imagery: A New Self-Report Imagery Questionnaire , 2006 .

[5]  S. Lacey,et al.  Mental representation in visual/haptic crossmodal memory: evidence from interference effects , 2006, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  Jennifer M. Shephard,et al.  Spatial versus object visualizers: A new characterization of visual cognitive style , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[7]  K Sathian,et al.  Multisensory object representation: insights from studies of vision and touch. , 2011, Progress in brain research.

[8]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Viewpoint Dependence in Visual and Haptic Object Recognition , 2001, Psychological science.

[9]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Revising the Visualizer-Verbalizer Dimension: Evidence for Two Types of Visualizers , 2002 .

[10]  S. Lacey,et al.  Perceptual learning of view-independence in visuo-haptic object representations , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[11]  S. Lacey,et al.  Cross-Modal Object Recognition Is Viewpoint-Independent , 2007, PloS one.

[12]  Amir Amedi,et al.  A Putative Model of Multisensory Object Representation , 2009, Brain Topography.

[13]  R. Lawson A comparison of the effects of depth rotation on visual and haptic three-dimensional object recognition. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.