The Developmental Significance of Cross-Modal Matching

Jones, Bill

doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-9197-9_4

Cited by 34 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another prediction might be made on the basis of the finding (discussed above; cf. Jones, 1981) of somewhat larger differences between intra-and cross-modal discrimination performance in children than in adults. It was possible that this larger difference occurred in children because children have less perceptual equivalence than adults do.'…”

Section: Examinations and Definitions Of Perceptual Equivalencementioning

confidence: 86%

“…This can be contrasted with explanations that cross-modal performance is limited by the performance of the "poorer" modality (cf. Jones, 1981). Tests of this explanation, now being completed, include the provision of various kinds of practice or experience to different individuals, and the attempt to deo termine whether or not these have any differential effect on the models of visual and/or touch perceptual structures and thus on the measures of perceptual equivalence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jones (1981) has suggested the importance of examining cross-modal performance by using designs that involve the factors of age, task, and important properties of the stimuli (size, complexity, etc.). The present results and those of Garbin (1988) suggest the importance of carefully selecting and examining the stimuli employed in discrimination or matching tasks, particularly in terms of their visual-touch perceptual similarity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The third approach has involved comparisons of intra-and cross-modal performance on various discrimination and/or recognition tasks. An important topic in the discussion of and research on these issues has been the comparison of visual and touch processing of shape information and the integration of this information under the demands of cross-modal matching and discrimination tasks (e.g., Jones, 1981). This interest in visual-touch comparisons of shape perception may be driven (as it is for me) by the almost unique opportunity to present the same stimulus via two modalities that can potentially process a large number of the same physical attributes of that stimulus.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cross-modal discrimination and matching tasks have also provided an important approach for examinations of visual and touch shape-information processing (for excellent overviews from a developmental perspective, see Abravanel, 1981, andJones, 1981). In these tasks, subjects first examine a standard shape using one modality and then examine one or more comparison shapes using the same or the other modality and select the standard (or indicate that it is not present, depending on the task).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Visual-touch perceptual equivalence for shape information in children and adults

Garbin

1990

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although there has been substantial developmental research which has compared shape information processing performance under visual and touch conditions, there has been little work that bears on the shape attributes that are routinely employed, or on the similarity between shape attributes employed by adults and those employed by children. The present research was carried out to investigate the visual-touch perceptual equivalence of young children, using multidimensional scaling techniques, and to compare the visual and touch perceptual structures of this age group with those of adults. The results provide evidence for adult-like perceptions of shape among 6-year-olds, in terms of both the patterns of interstimulus similarities and the shape attributes attended to by children using each modality. In addition, it was found that children have somewhat more visual-touch perceptual equivalence than adults do.From the earliest philosophical interests to the most recent physiological efforts, comparisons among the sensory modalities have served as an organizing and unifying theme of perceptual data and theory. There have been three major expressions of this theme. Perceptual equivalence research involves the comparison of the representations of stimuli and/or particular stimulus attributes formed via different modalities (e.g., Marks, 1978). Examinations of intersensory integration have explored the processes and representational results from the combination of information from two or more modalities into a single representation of a stimulus (e.g., Abravanel, 1981), often one that is richer or more complete than the representation from any single modality (Klatzky, Lederman, & Reed, 1987). The third approach has involved comparisons of intra-and cross-modal performance on various discrimination and/or recognition tasks. An important topic in the discussion of and research on these issues has been the comparison of visual and touch processing of shape information and the integration of this information under the demands of cross-modal matching and discrimination tasks (e.g., Jones, 1981). This interest in visual-touch comparisons of shape perception may be driven (as it is for me) by the almost unique opportunity to present the same stimulus via two modalities that can potentially process a large number of the same physical attributes of that stimulus.The present research was designed to assess the visualtouch perceptual equivalence in children's processing of three-dimensional forms, following a procedure that has produced interesting results in studies involving adults (Garbin, 1988;Garbin & Bernstein, 1984). This proceCorrespondence should be addressed to Calvin P. Garbin, Department of Psychology. 209 Burnett Hall. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588-0308. 271dure involves the analysis of the holistic shape-similarity judgments of three-dimensional shapes by multidimensional scaling (MDS) techniques that allow the recovery of the attributes upon which the judgments were based. The research was prompted by tw...

show abstract

Section: Examinations and Definitions Of Perceptual Equivalencementioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations