Solid shape discrimination from vision and haptics: natural objects (Capsicum annuum) and Gibson’s “feelies”

A set of three experiments evaluated 96 participants’ ability to visually and haptically discriminate solid object shape. In the past, some researchers have found haptic shape discrimination to be substantially inferior to visual shape discrimination, while other researchers have found haptics and vision to be essentially equivalent. A primary goal of the present study was to understand these discrepant past findings and to determine the true capabilities of the haptic system. All experiments used the same task (same vs. different shape discrimination) and stimulus objects (James Gibson’s “feelies” and a set of naturally shaped objects—bell peppers). However, the methodology varied across experiments. Experiment 1 used random 3-dimensional (3-D) orientations of the stimulus objects, and the conditions were full-cue (active manipulation of objects and rotation of the visual objects in depth). Experiment 2 restricted the 3-D orientations of the stimulus objects and limited the haptic and visual information available to the participants. Experiment 3 compared restricted and full-cue conditions using random 3-D orientations. We replicated both previous findings in the current study. When we restricted visual and haptic information (and placed the stimulus objects in the same orientation on every trial), the participants’ visual performance was superior to that obtained for haptics (replicating the earlier findings of Davidson et al. in Percept Psychophys 15(3):539–543, 1974). When the circumstances resembled those of ordinary life (e.g., participants able to actively manipulate objects and see them from a variety of perspectives), we found no significant difference between visual and haptic solid shape discrimination.

[1]  James T Todd,et al.  Perceptual biases in the interpretation of 3D shape from shading , 2004, Vision Research.

[2]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Visual and haptic perceptual spaces show high similarity in humans. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[3]  J. Gibson The Senses Considered As Perceptual Systems , 1967 .

[4]  Hideko F. Norman,et al.  Aging and the Visual, Haptic, and Cross-Modal Perception of Natural Object Shape , 2006, Perception.

[5]  Jan J. Koenderink,et al.  Solid shape , 1990 .

[6]  Eric J. L. Egan,et al.  Perceptual equivalence between vision and touch is complexity dependent. , 2009, Acta psychologica.

[7]  Alex Martin,et al.  Spontaneous neural activity predicts individual differences in performance , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  Hideko F. Norman,et al.  The visual and haptic perception of natural object shape , 2010 .

[9]  Elizabeth Y. Wiesemann,et al.  Aging and the perception of local surface orientation from optical patterns of shading and specular highlights , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  J. Gibson Observations on active touch. , 1962, Psychological review.

[11]  J Farley Norman,et al.  The perception and discrimination of local 3-D surface structure from deforming and disparate boundary contours , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[13]  J. Norman,et al.  Blindness enhances tactile acuity and haptic 3-D shape discrimination , 2011, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[14]  J T Todd,et al.  Surface range and attitude probing in stereoscopically presented dynamic scenes. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  J F Norman,et al.  The detection of surface curvatures defined by optical motion , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  J. Goodnow,et al.  Eye and hand: differential memory and its effect on matching. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[17]  J. Farley Norman,et al.  Aging preserves the ability to perceive 3D object shape from static but not deforming boundary contours. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[18]  H. Wallach,et al.  The kinetic depth effect. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  J J Koenderink,et al.  What Does the Occluding Contour Tell Us about Solid Shape? , 1984, Perception.

[20]  Philip W. Davidson,et al.  Influence of exploration time on haptic and visual matching of complex shape , 1974 .

[21]  D. Hilbert,et al.  Geometry and the Imagination , 1953 .

[22]  J. Gibson The useful dimensions of sensitivity. , 1963 .

[23]  Norio Izumi,et al.  Broadening the visualization frontier , 2007, J. Vis..

[24]  Hideko F. Norman,et al.  The Perception of Distances and Spatial Relationships in Natural Outdoor Environments , 2005, Perception.

[25]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Multimodal similarity and categorization of novel, three-dimensional objects , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[26]  Krish D. Singh,et al.  Orientation Discrimination Performance Is Predicted by GABA Concentration and Gamma Oscillation Frequency in Human Primary Visual Cortex , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[27]  Jan Koenderink,et al.  Multiple Visual Worlds , 2001, Perception.

[28]  M L Braunstein,et al.  Sensitivity of the observer to transformations of the visual field. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[29]  R W Cholewiak,et al.  Individual differences in the vibrotactile perception of a “simple” pattern set , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[30]  J. Koenderink,et al.  Surface perception in pictures , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  J. Koenderink,et al.  Haptic identification of curved surfaces , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[32]  James T. Todd,et al.  The perception of surface orientation from multiple sources of optical information , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[33]  Hideko F. Norman,et al.  The perception of length on curved and flat surfaces , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  S. J. Haggbloom,et al.  The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century , 2002 .

[35]  J. Todd,et al.  Ordinal structure in the visual perception and cognition of smoothly curved surfaces. , 1989, Psychological review.

[36]  Flip Phillips,et al.  Fechner, information, and shape perception , 2011, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[37]  M. Carter Computer graphics: Principles and practice , 1997 .

[38]  Andrea J. van Doorn,et al.  Surface shape and curvature scales , 1992, Image Vis. Comput..

[39]  大野 義夫,et al.  Computer Graphics : Principles and Practice, 2nd edition, J.D. Foley, A.van Dam, S.K. Feiner, J.F. Hughes, Addison-Wesley, 1990 , 1991 .

[40]  Jan J. Koenderink,et al.  Surface range and attitude probing in stereoscopically presented dynamic scenes , 1996 .

[41]  Christian Wallraven,et al.  Categorizing natural objects: a comparison of the visual and the haptic modalities , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[42]  James T Todd,et al.  The visual perception of 3-D shape from multiple cues: Are observers capable of perceiving metric structure? , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[43]  David J McGonigle,et al.  Regionally Specific Human GABA Concentration Correlates with Tactile Discrimination Thresholds , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[44]  J J Koenderink,et al.  Large Scale Differences between Haptic and Visual Judgments of Curvature , 1997, Perception.

[45]  Rebecca Lawson,et al.  Size-Sensitive Perceptual Representations Underlie Visual and Haptic Object Recognition , 2009, PloS one.

[46]  A. Torralba,et al.  Specular reflections and the perception of shape. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[47]  Independent Lacey,et al.  Cross-Modal Object Recognition Is Viewpoint- , 2007 .

[48]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Individual variability in functional connectivity predicts performance of a perceptual task , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[49]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Multidimensional scaling analysis of haptic exploratory procedures , 2010, TAP.