The transfer of information across sensory modalities

Shaffer, Ronald W.; Howard, James D.

doi:10.3758/bf03213956

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the time of its publication, our investigation represented the only experimental effort to isolate the role of specific and nonspecific factors in intersensory transfer of the discrimination of form between vision and touch. The lack of any evidence for the contribution of nonspecific learning lent further credence to the search for invariant features and/or mediational elements that have been suggested by several investigators as the carriers of the transfer between those modes (e.g., Shaffer & Howard, 1974). In this regard, our approach and our findings have important implications for Freides' conceptualization of the "unity of the senses" issue (Gibson, 1969) through his "modal-specific" versus "nonmodal" distinctions.…”

supporting

confidence: 80%

On the understanding of intersensory transfer designs: Reply to Freides.

Warm¹,

Schumsky²,

Clark³

1977

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1974 Freides criticized the 1972 Clark, Warm, and Schumsky study of intersensory transfer of form on the grounds that transfer effects were not assessed appropriately. It is suggested that Freides' indictment represents a misunderstanding of the nature of transfer designs in general and of their application to this problem in particular. Further data are cited to support the validity of the initial conclusions.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 80%

On the understanding of intersensory transfer designs: Reply to Freides.

Warm¹,

Schumsky²,

Clark³

1977

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although none of these studies reported evidence of nonspecific transfer, their findings for specific transfer of form discrimination present a mixed picture. Whereas Clark et al (1972) found specific transfer from vision to touch and from touch to vision, under similar conditions Shaffer and his colleagues (Shaffer & Ellis, 1974;Shaffer & Howard, 1974) failed to obtain evidence of specific transfer in either direction. These findings are not easily interpreted, for all three studies employed a paired-associate paradigm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…A number of studies have employed such transfer-of-training paradigms in the investigation of both specific and nonspecific cross-modal transfer effects (Clark, Warm, & Schumsky, 1972;Lobb, 1970;Pick, Pick, & Thomas, 1966;Shaffer & Ellis, 1974;Shaffer & Howard, 1974). Although none of these studies reported evidence of nonspecific transfer, their findings for specific transfer of form discrimination present a mixed picture.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual processing strategies in the cross-modal transfer of form discrimination: A developmental study.

Coté¹,

Schaefer²

1981

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groups of Grad 1, high school students, and elderly subjects were tested for their ability to discriminate tactile forms. The performance of control subjects who received no prior training was compared with that of subjects who received prior visual training under normal viewing conditions (Vw), or prior visual training with special goggles restricting form perception to a series of part impressions (Vp). Both the visual and tactile versions of the task involved comparisons of standard figures matched either with themselves or with transformation figures. There was no evidence of transfer for the children, regardless of previous experience. Specific as well as nonspecific cross-modal transfer was found in the high school and elderly groups following Vp training. Positive transfer was also found for the high school students in the Vw condition, although there is some question whether this was the result solely of cross-modal effects. Whereas all age groups performed equally well on standard versus transformation comparisons, standard versus standard matches were highest in the high school students, lowest in the children, and intermediate in the elderly. The generally poor performance of the children and the inability on the part of the elderly to benefit from Vw training are discussed in terms of task difficulty and inefficient perceptual processing strategies.

show abstract

“…Only rarely has the cross-modal transfer of a more generalized pattern concept, that of prototype or class structure, been examined. Shaffer and Howard (1974) examined the transfer of prototype or schema learning across vision and touch using the paradigm of Posner and Keele (1968) for pattern class generation and transfer test. Briefly, this paradigm requires that subjects, during training, learn to distinguish among the class memberships of patterns generated from several prototypes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%