Tactile localization of the direction and distance of sounds

Richardson, Barry Lund; Frost, Brian J.

doi:10.3758/bf03198813

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The wrist is a particularly promising candidate for future research as, although it has higher vibro-tactile detection thresholds than the fingertip, researchers have shown that it has similar sensitivity to frequency and amplitude differences ( Summers & Whybrow, 2005 ). Tactile stimulation could be delivered via multiple contacts to maximize information transfer capacity, as has been done previously with tactile aids to transfer more spectral information and even to transfer spatial hearing cues ( Richardson & Frost, 1979 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vibro-Tactile Enhancement of Speech Intelligibility in Multi-talker Noise for Simulated Cochlear Implant Listening

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many cochlear implant (CI) users achieve excellent speech understanding in acoustically quiet conditions but most perform poorly in the presence of background noise. An important contributor to this poor speech-in-noise performance is the limited transmission of low-frequency sound information through CIs. Recent work has suggested that tactile presentation of this low-frequency sound information could be used to improve speech-in-noise performance for CI users. Building on this work, we investigated whether vibro-tactile stimulation can improve speech intelligibility in multi-talker noise. The signal used for tactile stimulation was derived from the speech-in-noise using a computationally inexpensive algorithm. Eight normal-hearing participants listened to CI simulated speech-in-noise both with and without concurrent tactile stimulation of their fingertip. Participants' speech recognition performance was assessed before and after a training regime, which took place over 3 consecutive days and totaled around 30 min of exposure to CI-simulated speech-in-noise with concurrent tactile stimulation. Tactile stimulation was found to improve the intelligibility of speech in multi-talker noise, and this improvement was found to increase in size after training. Presentation of such tactile stimulation could be achieved by a compact, portable device and offer an inexpensive and noninvasive means for improving speech-in-noise performance in CI users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vibro-Tactile Enhancement of Speech Intelligibility in Multi-talker Noise for Simulated Cochlear Implant Listening

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Haptic cues for spatial hearing have not previously been used to augment CI listening. However, historically, a small number of studies have looked at whether spatial cues can be provided through haptic stimulation on the upper arms 10 or fingertips [11][12][13][14] of young normal-hearing listeners. In 1955, Von Bekesy described subjective reports of people being able to learn to locate sounds with the upper arms 10 , and later studies using the fingertips provided further support for the idea that spatial hearing cues can be transferred through the skin 12,13 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, historically, a small number of studies have looked at whether spatial cues can be provided through haptic stimulation on the upper arms 10 or fingertips [11][12][13][14] of young normal-hearing listeners. In 1955, Von Bekesy described subjective reports of people being able to learn to locate sounds with the upper arms 10 , and later studies using the fingertips provided further support for the idea that spatial hearing cues can be transferred through the skin 12,13 . Furthermore, recent work has shown that haptic stimulation can be used to enhance speech intelligibility in background noise for CI users [15][16][17] .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Electro-Haptic Enhancement of Spatial Hearing in Cochlear Implant Users

Fletcher

Cunningham

Mills

2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

cochlear implants (cis) have enabled hundreds of thousands of profoundly hearing-impaired people to perceive sounds by electrically stimulating the auditory nerve. However, ci users are often very poor at locating sounds, which leads to impaired sound segregation and threat detection. We provided missing spatial hearing cues through haptic stimulation to augment the electrical ci signal. We found that this "electro-haptic" stimulation dramatically improved sound localisation. furthermore, participants were able to effectively integrate spatial information transmitted through these two senses, performing better with combined audio and haptic stimulation than with either alone. our haptic signal was presented to the wrists and could readily be delivered by a low-cost wearable device. this approach could provide a non-invasive means of improving outcomes for the vast majority of ci users who have only one implant, without the expense and risk of a second implantation.

show abstract

“…Instead it may be that active perception is sometimes better than passive simply because the former condition yields more information than the latter. Some further evidence for this view was provided in an experiment conducted by Richardson & Frost (1979) in which the distance of sounds was judged on the basis of tactile transforms of the acoustic signal which was picked up by miniature microphones mounted bilaterally on the subject's head. The outputs of the microphones were fed to two fingertip vibrators and it was found that head movements significantly improved the accuracy with which the sound distances were judged (specifically, head movements created dynamic tactile sensations which seemed to move between the fingertips in direct correspondence with the degree and rate of head rotation).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That the resources of the haptic system are limited is a questionable explanation for poorer active performance if by haptic system is meant cutaneous channels of communication. Information of much greater complexity than the position of a single raised line can be transmitted via the cutaneous channels without approaching 'channel capacity ' (White et al, 1970;Kirman, 1973;Richardson & Frost, 1977). Indeed, Shiffrin et al (1973) presented evidence for an ' unlimited-capacity nonattention model of tactile perceptual processing' (p. 328).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Can passive touch be better than active touch? A comparison of active and passive tactile maze learning

Richardson

Wuillemin

Mackintosh

1981

British J of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a comparison of the performance of active (n = 15) and passive (n = 15) mechanically yoked subjects who learned their way through a tactile maze, it was shown that active subjects made more errors and took a greater number of trials to reach criterion than did passive subjects. In addition, the difference between active and passive performance was largely accounted for by the greater number of repeated errors made by active subjects. In a second experiment it was found that the poorer performance of active subjects could be attributed to the interfering effects of decisions about which way to move. However, the responsibility for the production of movement had no effect on performance. It was argued that the results reflected limits to the cognitive system, not the haptic system.

show abstract

Tactile localization of the direction and distance of sounds

Cited by 14 publications

References 16 publications

Vibro-Tactile Enhancement of Speech Intelligibility in Multi-talker Noise for Simulated Cochlear Implant Listening

Vibro-Tactile Enhancement of Speech Intelligibility in Multi-talker Noise for Simulated Cochlear Implant Listening

Electro-Haptic Enhancement of Spatial Hearing in Cochlear Implant Users

Can passive touch be better than active touch? A comparison of active and passive tactile maze learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About