Numerosity Discrimination of Tactile Stimuli

Posey, Thomas B.; James, M. R.

doi:10.2466/pms.1976.42.2.671

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The inverse relationship between electrode position identification scores and number of stimulus electrodes is consistent with previously reported studies of absolute stimulus identification (Geldard and Sherrick, 1965;Gilson, 1968;Posey and James, 1976). In addition, it is of interest that the information transmission score for the single-electrode set was approximately 3 bits, consistent with values previously reported by Miller (1956) This lends support to the contention of a spreading interaction postulated in the masking studies.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Perception of multiple electrode stimulus patterns: Implications for design of an electrotactile speech processor

Cowan

Blamey

Sarant

et al. 1991

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identification of multiple-electrode stimulus patterns was evaluated in nine adult subjects, to assess the feasibility of providing additional speech information through the tactual display of an electrotactile speech processor. Absolute identification scores decreased from 97.8% for single electrodes, to 61.9% for electrode pairs, and, to 31.8% for electrode triplets. Although input information increased with paired-and triple-electrode stimuli, information transmission scores were not significantly increased for either electrode pairs (2.99 bits) or triplets (2.84 bits) as compared with single electrodes (2.84 bits). These results suggest that speech coding strategies using stimulus patterns of electrode pairs or triplets would provide little improvement beyond that found for the present single-electrode scheme. However, higher absolute identification scores (73.6%), and an increase in information transmission to 3.88 bits, were recorded for test stimuli containing all combinations of paired and single electrodes. Based on this finding, two stimulus sets using a restricted number of combinations of paired and single electrodes were evaluated. The two stimulus sets simulated the spatial patterns of paired and single electrodes arising from use of alternative speech coding schemes to increase consonant voicing information. Results for the two stimulus sets showed higher electrode identification scores (79.7% and 90.4%), as compared with paired-electrode stimuli. Although electrode identification score was not as high as for single electrodes, information transmission was increased to 3.31 bits for the VF2 stimulus set. Analysis of the responses also showed that scores for identification of simulated voicing information conveyed by the two stimulus sets were 99.4 and 90.4% correct.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Perception of multiple electrode stimulus patterns: Implications for design of an electrotactile speech processor

Cowan

Blamey

Sarant

et al. 1991

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, we provide a more nuanced perspective on the notion of numerosity, typically characterized as "a property of a stimulus that is defined by the number of discriminable elements it contains" (Brannon and Terrace 1998, 746). Numerosity traditionally refers to the magnitude of a collection of perceptual elements (e.g., "••••••" is more numerous than "•••"; Ginsburg 1976;Krishna and Raghubir 1997;Lechelt 1975;Palat et al 2014;Pelham et al 1994;Piazza and Izard 2009;Piazza et al 2007;Posey and James 1976;Strauss and Curtis 1981), but marketing scholars also have started to adopt this label to describe the magnitude of a symbolic number (6 is more numerous than 3; Lembregts and Pandelaere 2013;Monga and Bagchi 2012;Wertenbroch and Soman 2007). Any quantity can be expressed in smaller versus larger symbolic numbers, independent of whether it is discretized in fewer versus more elements, so our studies highlight the importance of distinguishing perceptual numerosity (i.e., number of elements in an array) from symbolic numerosity (i.e., magnitude of an Arabic numeral).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Each Unit Count: The Role of Discretizing Units in Quantity Expressions

Lembregts

Bergh

2018

Journal of Consumer Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumers typically infer greater quantity from larger numbers. For instance, a 500 gram box of chocolates appears heavier than a .5 kilogram box. By expressing quantities in alternative units or attribute dimensions, one can represent an otherwise identical quantity in a more versus less discretized manner (e.g., a box containing 25 chocolates vs. a box weighing 500 grams). Seven experimental studies show that a difference between more discretized quantities (e.g., 25 vs. 50 chocolates) appears larger relative to a difference between less discretized quantities (e.g., 500 grams vs. 1,000 grams), above and beyond effects of number magnitude. More discretized quantity expressions enhance the consumers' ability to discriminate between choice options and can also nudge consumers to more favorable choices. Because more discretized quantities are more evaluable, expressing a quantity in terms of a collection of elements particularly helps individuals who are less numerically proficient. By identifying how discretization functions as a novel antecedent of evaluability and by distinguishing two different conceptualizations of numerosity (i.e., symbolic and perceptual numerosity), this article draws important connections between the numerical cognition literature and General Evaluability Theory.

show abstract

“…The order of presentation of the two block types was randomized across participants. Note that the number of tactors activated in any pattern never exceeded three, given recent evidence that people's ability to detect simultaneously presented stimuli over the body surface shows a marked decrease if the number of tactors activated exceeds this number (Gallace et al, 2006b; see also Posey & James, 1976).…”

Section: Experiments 1 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do “mudsplashes” induce tactile change blindness?

Gallace

Tan

Spence

2007

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phenomenon of change blindness (the surprising inability of people to correctly perceive changes between consecutively presented displays), primarily reported in vision, has recently been shown to occur for positional changes presented in tactile displays as well. Here, we studied people's ability to detect changes in the number of tactile stimuli in successively presented displays composed of one to three stimuli distributed over the body surface. In Experiment 1, a tactile mask consisting of the simultaneous activation of all seven possible tactile stimulators was sometimes presented between the two to-be-discriminated tactile displays. In Experiment 2, a "mudsplash" paradigm was used, with a brief irrelevant tactile distractor presented at the moment of change of the tactile display. Change blindness was demonstrated in both experiments, thus showing that the failure to detect tactile change is not necessarily related to (1) the physical disruption between consecutive events, (2) the effect of masking covering the location of the change, or (3) the erasure or resetting of the information contained within an internal representation of the tactile display. These results are interpreted in terms of a limitation in the number of spatial locations/events that can be consciously accessed at any one time. This limitation appears to constrain change-detection performance, no matter the sensory modality in which the stimuli are presented.

show abstract

Numerosity Discrimination of Tactile Stimuli

Cited by 7 publications

References 4 publications

Perception of multiple electrode stimulus patterns: Implications for design of an electrotactile speech processor

Perception of multiple electrode stimulus patterns: Implications for design of an electrotactile speech processor

Making Each Unit Count: The Role of Discretizing Units in Quantity Expressions

Do “mudsplashes” induce tactile change blindness?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About