Abstract

We investigated and compared the acquisition of haptic concepts by the blind with the acquisition of haptic concepts by sighted controls. Each subject-blind, sighted but blindfolded, sighted and touching, and sighted only-initially classified eight objects into two categories using a study/test format, followed by a recognition/classification test involving old, new, and prototype forms. Each object varied along the dimensions of shape, size, and texture, with each dimension having five values. The categories were linearly separable in three dimensions, but no single dimension permitted 100% accurate classification. The results revealed that blind subjects learned the categories quickly and comparably with sighted controls. On the classification test, all groups performed equivalently, with the category prototype classified more accurately than the old or new stimuli. The blind subjects differed from the other subjects on the recognition test in two ways: They were least likely to false alarm to novel patterns that belonged to the category but most likely to false alarm to the category prototype, which they falsely called "old" 100% of the time. We discuss these results in terms of current views of categorization.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)690-698
Number of pages9
JournalAttention, Perception, and Psychophysics
Volume71
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2009

Fingerprint

Haptics
stimulus
Prototype
Values
Group
time
Texture
Stimulus

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sensory Systems
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Haptic concepts in the blind. / Homa, Donald; Kahol, Kanav; Tripathi, Priyamvada; Bratt, Laura; Panchanathan, Sethuraman.

In: Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, Vol. 71, No. 4, 05.2009, p. 690-698.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Homa, Donald ; Kahol, Kanav ; Tripathi, Priyamvada ; Bratt, Laura ; Panchanathan, Sethuraman. / Haptic concepts in the blind. In: Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics. 2009 ; Vol. 71, No. 4. pp. 690-698.
@article{53b1bfb7443648179bf4fe791224a10b,
title = "Haptic concepts in the blind",
abstract = "We investigated and compared the acquisition of haptic concepts by the blind with the acquisition of haptic concepts by sighted controls. Each subject-blind, sighted but blindfolded, sighted and touching, and sighted only-initially classified eight objects into two categories using a study/test format, followed by a recognition/classification test involving old, new, and prototype forms. Each object varied along the dimensions of shape, size, and texture, with each dimension having five values. The categories were linearly separable in three dimensions, but no single dimension permitted 100{\%} accurate classification. The results revealed that blind subjects learned the categories quickly and comparably with sighted controls. On the classification test, all groups performed equivalently, with the category prototype classified more accurately than the old or new stimuli. The blind subjects differed from the other subjects on the recognition test in two ways: They were least likely to false alarm to novel patterns that belonged to the category but most likely to false alarm to the category prototype, which they falsely called {"}old{"} 100{\%} of the time. We discuss these results in terms of current views of categorization.",
author = "Donald Homa and Kanav Kahol and Priyamvada Tripathi and Laura Bratt and Sethuraman Panchanathan",
year = "2009",
month = "5",
doi = "10.3758/APP.71.4.690",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "71",
pages = "690--698",
journal = "Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics",
issn = "1943-3921",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Haptic concepts in the blind

AU - Homa, Donald

AU - Kahol, Kanav

AU - Tripathi, Priyamvada

AU - Bratt, Laura

AU - Panchanathan, Sethuraman

PY - 2009/5

Y1 - 2009/5

N2 - We investigated and compared the acquisition of haptic concepts by the blind with the acquisition of haptic concepts by sighted controls. Each subject-blind, sighted but blindfolded, sighted and touching, and sighted only-initially classified eight objects into two categories using a study/test format, followed by a recognition/classification test involving old, new, and prototype forms. Each object varied along the dimensions of shape, size, and texture, with each dimension having five values. The categories were linearly separable in three dimensions, but no single dimension permitted 100% accurate classification. The results revealed that blind subjects learned the categories quickly and comparably with sighted controls. On the classification test, all groups performed equivalently, with the category prototype classified more accurately than the old or new stimuli. The blind subjects differed from the other subjects on the recognition test in two ways: They were least likely to false alarm to novel patterns that belonged to the category but most likely to false alarm to the category prototype, which they falsely called "old" 100% of the time. We discuss these results in terms of current views of categorization.

AB - We investigated and compared the acquisition of haptic concepts by the blind with the acquisition of haptic concepts by sighted controls. Each subject-blind, sighted but blindfolded, sighted and touching, and sighted only-initially classified eight objects into two categories using a study/test format, followed by a recognition/classification test involving old, new, and prototype forms. Each object varied along the dimensions of shape, size, and texture, with each dimension having five values. The categories were linearly separable in three dimensions, but no single dimension permitted 100% accurate classification. The results revealed that blind subjects learned the categories quickly and comparably with sighted controls. On the classification test, all groups performed equivalently, with the category prototype classified more accurately than the old or new stimuli. The blind subjects differed from the other subjects on the recognition test in two ways: They were least likely to false alarm to novel patterns that belonged to the category but most likely to false alarm to the category prototype, which they falsely called "old" 100% of the time. We discuss these results in terms of current views of categorization.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67650138994&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67650138994&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3758/APP.71.4.690

DO - 10.3758/APP.71.4.690

M3 - Article

C2 - 19429952

AN - SCOPUS:67650138994

VL - 71

SP - 690

EP - 698

JO - Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

JF - Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

SN - 1943-3921

IS - 4

ER -