The effects of size changes on haptic object recognition

Abstract

Two experiments examined the effects of size changes on haptic object recognition. In Experiment 1, participants named one of three exemplars (a standard-size-and-shape, different-size, or different-shape exemplar) of 36 categories of real, familiar objects. They then performed an old/new recognition task on the basis of object identity for the standard exemplars of all 36 objects. Half of the participants performed both blocks visually; the other half performed both blocks haptically. The participants were able to efficiently name unusually sized objects haptically, consistent with previous findings of good recognition of small-scale models of stimuli (Lawson, in press). However, performance was impaired for both visual and haptic old/new recognition when objects changed size or shape between blocks. In Experiment 2, participants performed a short-term haptic shapematching task using 3-D plastic models of familiar objects, and as in Experiment 1, a cost emerged for ignoring the irrelevant size change. Like its visual counterpart, haptic object recognition incurs a significant but modest cost for generalizing across size changes.

Visuo-haptic multisensory object recognition, categorization, and representation

“…Thus, in contrast to vision where perceived size varies with distance, in touch, physical size is perceived directly, i.e., haptic size equals physical size. It is intriguing then, that haptic (Craddock and Lawson, 2009b,c) and cross-modal (Craddock and Lawson, 2009c) recognition are apparently size-dependent and this merits further investigation. Further research should address whether haptic representations store a canonical size for familiar objects (as has recently been proposed for visual representations, Konkle and Oliva, 2011), deviations from which could impair recognition, and whether object constancy can be achieved across size changes in unfamiliar objects.…”

The effects of temporal delay and orientation on haptic object recognition

“…In our previous sequential shape-matching experiments, our analyses focused on matches only (e.g., Craddock & Lawson, 2009a, 2009bLawson, 2009), since mismatches typically presented two very different shapes. Manipulations such as size and orientation were therefore meaningfully interpretable only for matches.…”

“…There is substantial overlap in the neural architecture invoked during visual and haptic object exploration (e.g., Amedi, Jacobson, Hendler, Malach, & Zohary, 2002;Amedi, Malach, Hendler, Peled, & Zohary, 2001;Miquée et al, 2008), and visual and haptic object recognition are similarly impaired by changes in object orientation (Craddock & Lawson, 2008;Lacey, Peters, & Sathian, 2007;Lawson, 1999Lawson, , 2009Newell, Ernst, Tjan, & Bülthoff, 2001) and object size (Craddock & Lawson, 2009a, 2009b.…”

“…Although haptic object recognition is reasonably fast (e.g., Craddock & Lawson, 2008, 2009aKlatzky, Lederman, & Metzger, 1985), it is generally slower than vision (e.g., Craddock & Lawson, 2009a). Haptics relies on slower, more sequential exploration than does vision and must, therefore, depend more on working and shortt term memory to maintain and integrate information as it accumulates.…”

Relationship Between Laterality and Handedness With the Higher Order Sensory Functions and Manual Dexterity of the Elderly

“…The probable reasons for these findings are: 1. HORT requires an exploratory procedure to discriminate between different objects [21].Furthermore, it is based on the aspects of object arrangement, size, shape and orientation [22], which makes it a complicated task that requires more attention [23]. Based on the HAROLD model, asymmetry in complex tasks decreases as age increases, thereby providing results that show lack of significant differences in the functions of the dominant and non-dominant hand of right-and left-handed groups.…”