Vision holds a greater share in visuo-haptic object recognition than touch

Kassuba, Tanja; Klinge, Corinna; Hölig, Cordula; Röder, Brigitte; Siebner, Hartwig R.

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.054

Cited by 40 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(68 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since vision provides information about several object features in parallel and even if the object is outside the reaching space, there might be an overall dominance of vision in object recognition, at least if objects have to be recognized predominantly based on their shape. In line with this notion, we have recently found an asymmetry in the processing of crossmodal information during visual and haptic object recognition (Kassuba et al, 2013a). Using a visuo-haptic delayed-match-to-sample task during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the direction of delayed matching (visual-haptic vs. haptic-visual) influenced the activation profiles in bilateral LO, FG, anterior (aIPS) and posterior intraparietal sulcus (pIPS), that is, in regions which have previously been associated with visuo-haptic object integration (Grefkes et al, 2002; Saito et al, 2003; Stilla and Sathian, 2008; Kassuba et al, 2011; for review see Lacey and Sathian, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 69%

“…Specifically, we applied real or sham (non-effective) offline 1 Hz rTMS to the left LO immediately before subjects performed a visuo-haptic delayed-match-to-sample task during fMRI. The published results reported above (Kassuba et al, 2013a) present the results after sham rTMS, the current paper focuses on how these multisensory interaction effects were modulated by real rTMS. During fMRI, a visual or haptic sample object (S1) and a visual or haptic target object (S2) were presented sequentially, and subjects had to indicate whether the identity of both objects was the same (congruent) or not (incongruent).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Multisensory interactions were defined as an increased activation during crossmodal vs. unimodal matching (crossmodal matching effects, cf. Grefkes et al, 2002) that were stronger for congruent than incongruent object pairs (crossmodal matching by semantic congruency interaction; Kassuba et al, 2013a,b). The rTMS-induced changes in task-related activity were investigated with blood-oxygenated-level-dependent (BOLD) fMRI.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Short-term plasticity of visuo-haptic object recognition

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have provided ample evidence for the involvement of the lateral occipital cortex (LO), fusiform gyrus (FG), and intraparietal sulcus (IPS) in visuo-haptic object integration. Here we applied 30 min of sham (non-effective) or real offline 1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to perturb neural processing in left LO immediately before subjects performed a visuo-haptic delayed-match-to-sample task during fMRI. In this task, subjects had to match sample (S1) and target (S2) objects presented sequentially within or across vision and/or haptics in both directions (visual-haptic or haptic-visual) and decide whether or not S1 and S2 were the same objects. Real rTMS transiently decreased activity at the site of stimulation and remote regions such as the right LO and bilateral FG during haptic S1 processing. Without affecting behavior, the same stimulation gave rise to relative increases in activation during S2 processing in the right LO, left FG, bilateral IPS, and other regions previously associated with object recognition. Critically, the modality of S2 determined which regions were recruited after rTMS. Relative to sham rTMS, real rTMS induced increased activations during crossmodal congruent matching in the left FG for haptic S2 and the temporal pole for visual S2. In addition, we found stronger activations for incongruent than congruent matching in the right anterior parahippocampus and middle frontal gyrus for crossmodal matching of haptic S2 and in the left FG and bilateral IPS for unimodal matching of visual S2, only after real but not sham rTMS. The results imply that a focal perturbation of the left LO triggers modality-specific interactions between the stimulated left LO and other key regions of object processing possibly to maintain unimpaired object recognition. This suggests that visual and haptic processing engage partially distinct brain networks during visuo-haptic object matching.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Short-term plasticity of visuo-haptic object recognition

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent study suggests that underlying neural activity is asymmetric between the two crossmodal conditions. Using a match-to-sample task, Kassuba et al (2013) showed that bilateral lateral occipital complex (LOC), fusiform gyrus (FG), and anterior intraparietal sulcus (aIPS) selectively responded more strongly to crossmodal, compared to unimodal, object matching when haptic targets followed visual samples, and more strongly still when the haptic target and visual sample were congruent rather than incongruent; however, these regions showed no such increase for visual targets in either crossmodal or unimodal conditions. This asymmetric increase in activation in the visual-haptic condition may reflect multisensory binding of shape information and suggests that haptics – traditionally seen as the less reliable modality – has to integrate previously presented visual information more than vision has to integrate previous haptic information (Kassuba et al, 2013).…”

Section: Haptic and Visuo-haptic Object Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visuo-haptic multisensory object recognition, categorization, and representation

Lacey

Sathian²

2014

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual and haptic unisensory object processing show many similarities in terms of categorization, recognition, and representation. In this review, we discuss how these similarities contribute to multisensory object processing. In particular, we show that similar unisensory visual and haptic representations lead to a shared multisensory representation underlying both cross-modal object recognition and view-independence. This shared representation suggests a common neural substrate and we review several candidate brain regions, previously thought to be specialized for aspects of visual processing, that are now known also to be involved in analogous haptic tasks. Finally, we lay out the evidence for a model of multisensory object recognition in which top-down and bottom-up pathways to the object-selective lateral occipital complex are modulated by object familiarity and individual differences in object and spatial imagery.

show abstract

“…The accuracy of the memory association depends on the intensity of the cumulated multisensory experience or knowledge. Besides, as vision is believed to be more effective than other senses (especially touch) in processing several object features in parallel and exploring objects more efficiently (more accurately and more rapidly) (Jones and ONeil 1985;Jones 1981;Kassuba et al 2013), much research has been found on investigating the possibility to perceive tactile information through vision. For example, Klatzky and Lederman (2010) stated in their review about multisensory perception of objects' texture properties that some aspects of texture can be represented by touch and vision without evident bias detected between different sensory modalities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpretation of Fabric Tactile Perceptions through Visual Features for Textile Products

Xue

Zeng

Koehl

et al. 2016

Journal of Sensory Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, a systematic method based on two sensory experiments has been proposed to explore the relations between the visual and haptic perceptions of the tactile properties of a number of textile samples. The first experiment is designed to investigate to what extent fabric tactile properties could be perceived through the samples' visual representations. On this basis, the second experiment is carried out to study the mathematical relation between different sensory (visual and tactile) datasets. In this study, a new approach has been proposed based on rough inclusion degree and fuzzy inference system to deal with the sensory relations. The results show that for the discussed samples, most fabric tactile properties could be well perceived via vision. With the help of a fuzzy neural model, it is possible to predict a certain tactile property from the numerical scores of its principal visual features. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONSCompared with researches focused on the development of mechanical simulative devices, the approach proposed here is much less expensive and could provide more direct and reasonable interpretation of fabric tactile information as both two sides of the model are from sensory systems which work as a whole during perception. Based on our model, with the help of image processing techniques, visual attributes will be automatically extracted from static or dynamic images, and interpreted by our rules to fabric tactile properties. Besides, this study will serve as a fundamental to the study on virtual fitting technologies in that the manufacturers or designers will be able to actively manipulate the virtual displays of textile products to provide our consumers with the most close-to-real sense of fabric.

show abstract

Vision holds a greater share in visuo-haptic object recognition than touch

Cited by 40 publications

References 38 publications

Short-term plasticity of visuo-haptic object recognition

Short-term plasticity of visuo-haptic object recognition

Visuo-haptic multisensory object recognition, categorization, and representation

Interpretation of Fabric Tactile Perceptions through Visual Features for Textile Products

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About