Lateralized sensitivity to vibrotactile stimulation: Individual differences revealed by interaction of threshold and signal detection tasks

Rhodes, Dell L.; Schwartz, Gary E.

doi:10.1016/0028-3932(81)90097-x

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Left-side superiority has also been reported for pressure, pain, sharpness, and vibrotactile thresholds (Ghent 1961;Haslam 1970;Rhodes and Schwartz 1981;Semmes et al 1960;Weinstein and Sersen 1961), though Carmon et al (1969), and Fennel et al (1967) were unable to demonstrate laterality differences. Boll (1974) found that patients with right-hemisphere damage were more impaired on a battery of tactualperception tasks than those with left-hemisphere damage and concluded that while the left hemisphere may subserve contralateral tactual perception, the right is preeminent for both sides of the body.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Head and Body Hemispace to Left and Right III: Vibrotactile Stimulation and Sensory and Motor Components

et al. 1983

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response latencies were measured to vibrotactile stimulation delivered to the forefingers of the left or right hands which were positioned ipsilaterally or contralaterally (across the midline) in left or right hemispace. While the two hands did not differ in speed of response, either hand performed better when located in right hemispace (experiment 1). This effect was greatly reduced, though not eliminated, with 90 degrees lateral head turn, when performance was better with stimulation and responding in right-of-head hemispace, but not right-of-body hemispace (experiment 2). When different hands received stimulation and initiated responses, and were located in either the same or opposite hemispace, right-hemispace superiority was found to be motor rather than sensory (experiment 3). These findings are discussed in the context of the true and the phenomenological midline and the clinical syndrome of hemineglect.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Head and Body Hemispace to Left and Right III: Vibrotactile Stimulation and Sensory and Motor Components

et al. 1983

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants sat in a light-attenuated room approximately 60 cm in front of a stimulus array, consisting of a polystyrene wedge in which was mounted a 4 mm red light-emitting diode (LED) and a bone conductor with a 1.6 cm62.4 cm vibrating surface (Oticon Limited, B/C 2-PIN), to which the participant's index finger was fixed with a double-sided adhesive pad. Square-wave (100 Hz) stimuli lasting 20 ms were presented to the left index finger, in light of evidence that the left (nondominant) hand is more sensitive to vibrotactile and somatosensory stimuli than the right (dominant) hand (eg Ghent 1961;Goldblatt 1956;Rhodes and Schwartz 1981).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Now You Feel it, Now You Don't: How Robust is the Phenomenon of Illusory Tactile Experience?

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies have reported that in normal healthy individuals, the perception of illusory sensations in one modality can be induced by the presentation of a stimulus in another modality. These illusory sensations may arise from the activation of a tactile representation in memory induced by the non-target stimulus, in a process mirroring that thought to be responsible for many forms of medically unexplained symptoms. The reliability of illusory-touch reports was investigated here in two experiments with a novel perceptual paradigm designed to simulate the occurrence of somatoform symptoms in the laboratory. A concurrent light significantly increased the number of tactile stimuli reported, and resulted in a higher number of illusory-touch reports, while the modality of the trial start cue did not affect subsequent responses. In addition, a strong relationship was found between the rates of illusory sensations that participants produced in successive sessions, indicating that the tendency to report illusory sensations is a robust phenomenon.

show abstract

“…Studies involving psychophysics and neuroimaging have also demonstrated a right-hemisphere advantage for haptic processing in both humans ( De Renzi et al, 1969 ; Milner and Taylor, 1972 ; Benton et al, 1973 ; Dodds, 1978 ; Riege et al, 1980 ; O’Boyle et al, 1987 ; Wilkinson and Carr, 1987 ; Fagot et al, 1993a , b , 1994 ; Butler et al, 2004 ; Harada et al, 2004 ; Loayza et al, 2011 ; Morange-Majoux, 2011 ; Tomlinson et al, 2011 ; Cormier and Tremblay, 2013 ; Stone and Gonzalez, 2014a , b ) and non-human primates ( Lacreuse and Fragaszy, 1996 , 1999 ). For most of these studies, individuals have been asked to haptically explore, differentiate, or detect geometrical shapes ( Franco and Sperry, 1977 ; Cormier and Tremblay, 2013 ; Stone and Gonzalez, 2014a , b ), non-sense shapes ( Dodds, 1978 ; Fagot et al, 1993a , b , 1994 ), vibrations ( Weinstein, 1978 ; Rhodes and Schwartz, 1981 ; Heller et al, 1990 ; Wiles et al, 1990 ), or object orientation ( Cannon and Benton, 1969 ; Benton et al, 1973 ; Varney and Benton, 1975 ; Brizzolara et al, 1982 ). For instance, Fagot et al (1993a , b , 1994 ) had individuals haptically explore different cubes either unimanually or bimanually and measured accuracy during a recognition test.…”

Section: Sensory Contributions To Hand Preference For Reaching and Grmentioning

confidence: 99%

The contributions of vision and haptics to reaching and grasping

Stone

Gonzalez

2015

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review aims to provide a comprehensive outlook on the sensory (visual and haptic) contributions to reaching and grasping. The focus is on studies in developing children, normal, and neuropsychological populations, and in sensory-deprived individuals. Studies have suggested a right-hand/left-hemisphere specialization for visually guided grasping and a left-hand/right-hemisphere specialization for haptically guided object recognition. This poses the interesting possibility that when vision is not available and grasping relies heavily on the haptic system, there is an advantage to use the left hand. We review the evidence for this possibility and dissect the unique contributions of the visual and haptic systems to grasping. We ultimately discuss how the integration of these two sensory modalities shape hand preference.

show abstract

Lateralized sensitivity to vibrotactile stimulation: Individual differences revealed by interaction of threshold and signal detection tasks

Cited by 12 publications

References 19 publications

Head and Body Hemispace to Left and Right III: Vibrotactile Stimulation and Sensory and Motor Components

Head and Body Hemispace to Left and Right III: Vibrotactile Stimulation and Sensory and Motor Components

Now You Feel it, Now You Don't: How Robust is the Phenomenon of Illusory Tactile Experience?

The contributions of vision and haptics to reaching and grasping

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About