Vibrotactile masking: Effects of oneand two-site stimulation

Verrillo, Ronald T.; Gescheider, George A.; Calman, Bruce G.; Doren, Clayton L. Van

doi:10.3758/bf03205886

Cited by 76 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, vibrotactile masking and adaptation phenomena bear marked similarities to presentation-order effects. In vibrotactile masking, a prior stimulus may substantially raise the detection threshold of a target vibration occurring up to 200 msec later (Gescheider, Bolanowski & Verrillo, 1989;Gescheider, Bolanowski, Verrillo, Arpajian, & Ryan, 1990;Gescheider, Verrillo, & Van Doren, 1982;Hamer, Verrillo, & Zwislocki, 1983;Kirman, 1986;Verrillo & Gescheider, 1977;Verrillo, Gescheider, Calman, & Van Doren, 1983). However, masking effects completely dissipate 500 msec after stimulation, the shortest delay period used in the present study, whereas observed discrimination order effects persisted for 30-sec delays.…”

Section: Presentation-order Effectscontrasting

confidence: 50%

Discrimination of vibrotactile frequencies in a delayed pair comparison task

Sinclair

Burton

1996

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study quantified human short-term-memory decay functions for delayed vibrotactile frequency discriminations. Subjects indicated which of two successive intervals contained the higher or lower frequency of a pair separated by delay periods of 0.5-30 sec. Performance decreased as a function of length of delay and was higher when delays were unfilled than when they were filled with a backwardscounting task This interpolated task may have interfered with rehearsal of a coded representation of the remembered vibrotactile frequency. A change in decay rate after 5-sec delays suggests a switch from reliance on sensory memory to the coded frequency representation. Performance and decay rate depended on presentation order of higher or lower frequency within pairs. Reciprocal performance asymmetries seen in high-versus low-frequency ranges did not result from simple response bias.

show abstract

Section: Presentation-order Effectscontrasting

confidence: 50%

Discrimination of vibrotactile frequencies in a delayed pair comparison task

Sinclair

Burton

1996

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Sherrick ͑1964͒ reported an increase of almost 30 dB in the detection threshold for a 350-ms pulsed 150-Hz vibrotactile signal at the right index finger when presented simultaneously with a 350-ms pulsed 150-Hz vibrotactile masker of 30 dB SL at the right little finger. Verrillo et al ͑1983͒ observed substantial masking of a 300-ms, 300-Hz test stimulus at the index fingertip when it was temporally centered within a 730-ms, 300-Hz masking stimulus at the ipsilateral thenar eminence. They further measured vibration at the index fingertip due to physical transmission of masking vibration from the thenar site, and thereby established that even their maximum intensity masker produced only subthreshold vibration at the fingertip surface ͑suggesting that the underlying process is likely more central͒.…”

Section: B Tactual Temporal Order Discriminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measures of tactual detection and temporal order resolution in congenitally deaf and normal-hearing adults

Moallem

Reed

Braida

2010

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To guide the development of tactile speech aids, tactual detection and temporal order discrimination by congenitally deaf and normal-hearing adults have been examined. Tactual detection thresholds for sinusoidal vibrations between 2 and 300 Hz were measured at the left thumb and index finger using an adaptive paradigm. Temporal onset-and offset-order discrimination were tested using stimuli of 50 Hz at the thumb and 250 Hz at the index finger, delivered asynchronously and varied independently in amplitude and duration. Mean detection thresholds for the deaf and normal-hearing groups did not differ significantly at any frequency tested. Temporal onset-order discrimination thresholds varied widely, particularly among congenitally deaf individuals, but no statistically significant difference was found between group means. Both experimental groups exhibited a broad range of discrimination thresholds for temporal offset-order, and mean thresholds did not differ significantly. On the whole, tactual offset-order thresholds were substantially higher than onset-order thresholds. Differences in the relative levels of paired stimuli systematically affected sensitivity to both onset-and offset-orders in most subjects. Differences in the relative durations of paired stimuli had little effect on onset-order discrimination, but had a robust effect on offset-order discrimination thresholds, which was consistent across all subjects.

show abstract

“…Cross-channel masking is often based on the assumption that Pacinian and non-Pacinian systems are independent in response: a masker stimulating one system should not alter the detectability of a signal in the other system (Labs et al, 1978;Hamer, 1979;Hamer et al, 1983;Gescheider et al, 1982;Verrillo et al, 1983). A horizontal line in a masking function implies independence in the detection response, as indicated by Hamer et al (1983):…”

Section: Cross-channel Maskingmentioning

confidence: 99%