An analysis of intersensory transfer of form.

Shaffer, Ronald W.; Ellis, Henry C.

doi:10.1037/h0036547

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately, he neglected to deal with this point. It is noteworthy, that Shaffer and Ellis (1974) have recently described an experiment, using a paired-associate paradigm, in which the role of specific and nonspecific factors in the intersensory transfer of form between vision and touch was examined more completely than in our earlier report. They too, could uncover no evidence for a nonspecific transfer effect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

On the understanding of intersensory transfer designs: Reply to Freides.

Warm¹,

Schumsky²,

Clark³

1977

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1974 Freides criticized the 1972 Clark, Warm, and Schumsky study of intersensory transfer of form on the grounds that transfer effects were not assessed appropriately. It is suggested that Freides' indictment represents a misunderstanding of the nature of transfer designs in general and of their application to this problem in particular. Further data are cited to support the validity of the initial conclusions.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 86%

On the understanding of intersensory transfer designs: Reply to Freides.

Warm¹,

Schumsky²,

Clark³

1977

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although none of these studies reported evidence of nonspecific transfer, their findings for specific transfer of form discrimination present a mixed picture. Whereas Clark et al (1972) found specific transfer from vision to touch and from touch to vision, under similar conditions Shaffer and his colleagues (Shaffer & Ellis, 1974;Shaffer & Howard, 1974) failed to obtain evidence of specific transfer in either direction. These findings are not easily interpreted, for all three studies employed a paired-associate paradigm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A number of studies have employed such transfer-of-training paradigms in the investigation of both specific and nonspecific cross-modal transfer effects (Clark, Warm, & Schumsky, 1972;Lobb, 1970;Pick, Pick, & Thomas, 1966;Shaffer & Ellis, 1974;Shaffer & Howard, 1974). Although none of these studies reported evidence of nonspecific transfer, their findings for specific transfer of form discrimination present a mixed picture.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual processing strategies in the cross-modal transfer of form discrimination: A developmental study.

Coté¹,

Schaefer²

1981

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groups of Grad 1, high school students, and elderly subjects were tested for their ability to discriminate tactile forms. The performance of control subjects who received no prior training was compared with that of subjects who received prior visual training under normal viewing conditions (Vw), or prior visual training with special goggles restricting form perception to a series of part impressions (Vp). Both the visual and tactile versions of the task involved comparisons of standard figures matched either with themselves or with transformation figures. There was no evidence of transfer for the children, regardless of previous experience. Specific as well as nonspecific cross-modal transfer was found in the high school and elderly groups following Vp training. Positive transfer was also found for the high school students in the Vw condition, although there is some question whether this was the result solely of cross-modal effects. Whereas all age groups performed equally well on standard versus transformation comparisons, standard versus standard matches were highest in the high school students, lowest in the children, and intermediate in the elderly. The generally poor performance of the children and the inability on the part of the elderly to benefit from Vw training are discussed in terms of task difficulty and inefficient perceptual processing strategies.

show abstract

“…For example, Holmgren, Arnoult, and Manning (1966) had subjects learn a paired-associate label to a pattern in one modality (visual or auditory) and transfer this information to the opposing modality. Shaffer and Ellis (1974) used a similar task to examine transfer from vision to touch. Another paradigm for examining transfer of single pattern information across modalities has been the matching-to-sample task in which a subject receives a standard in one modality and a series of comparison stimuli in another modality and is required This research was supported by Grant 5R01 HD07163 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%