Modality-Specific Differences in the Processing of Spatially, Temporally, and Spatiotemporally Distributed Information

Abstract

The extent to which auditory, tactile, and visual perceptual representations are similar, particularly when dealing with speech and speech-like stimuli, was investigated. It was found that comparisons between auditory and tactile patterns were easier to perform than were similar comparisons between auditory and visual stimuli. This was true across a variety of styles of tactile and visual display, and was not due to limitations in the discriminability of the visual displays. The findings suggest that auditory and tactile representations of stimuli are more alike than are auditory and visual ones. It was also found that touch and vision differ in terms of the style of information distribution which they process most efficiently. Touch dealt with patterns best when the pattern was characterised by changes across time, whereas vision did best when spatially or spatiotemporally distributed patterns were presented. As the sense of hearing also seems to specialise in the processing of temporally ordered patterns, these results suggest one way in which the senses of hearing and touch differ from vision.

Remote Tactile Displays for Future Soldiers

“…Clearly, the design of the vibrotactile icon makes a large difference in "intrusiveness" and should be studied thoroughly and "controlled". Mahar, Mackenzie, and McNicol (1994) suggested that tactile icon design is improved when the patterns are characterized by changes across time, akin more to audition than vision's spatially distributed patterns. Van Erp and Spapé (2003) essentially used this type of approach to create 59 tactile "melodies" by transforming pieces of music from the auditory domain to the vibrotactile domain.…”

Modality-Constrained Statistical Learning of Tactile, Visual, and Auditory Sequences.

“…The touch modality appears to be adept at processing both sequential and spatial input, but not at the same level of proficiency as either audition or vision (Mahar et al, 1994).…”

“…Second, the auditory modality appears to have an advantage in the processing of sequential input, including low-level temporal processing tasks (Sherrick & Cholewiak, 1986) and pattern or rhythm discrimination (e.g., Manning et al, 1975). In a comprehensive review of the effect of modality on cognitive processing, Freides (1974) concluded that for complex tasks, audition is best suited for temporal processing, whereas vision excels at spatial tasks (for similar views, see also Kubovy, 1988;Mahar et al, 1994;Penney, 1989;Saffran, 2002). That is, audition is best at processing sequential, temporally distributed input, whereas vision excels at spatially distributed input.…”

“…For instance, traditionally, vision and audition have been viewed as spatial and temporal senses, respectively (Kubovy, 1988). Empirical evidence from perceptual and temporal processing experiments supports such a distinction between vision and audition (e.g., Glenberg & Swanson, 1986;Mahar, Mackenzie, & McNicol, 1994). However, it is currently unknown whether and how these modality constraints affect the learning of statistical relationships between elements contained within sequential input.…”

The Body Surface as a Communication System: The State of the Art after 50 Years

“…It is therefore conceivable that any difference between the information processing capacities of the "hands" versus the rest of the body might, at least in part, be related to the fact that certain body parts are generally underused as receptor surfaces for information transfer (note however that the lower density of tactile receptors as one moves away from the fingers might play an important role in constraining tactile processing across the body surface). In other words, people may simply not be used to attending to large parts of their body surface (Godde, Gallace, Auvray, et al 2006, Gallace et al 2006b Mahar, Mackenzie, & McNicol, 1994).…”