Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
What is the Hardness Perceived by Tapping? Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

How Attention Is Allocated When Using Haptic Touch: Shape Feature Distinction and Discrimination Strategy

verfasst von : Torø Graven

Erschienen in: Haptics: Perception, Devices, Control, and Applications

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This study investigated how attention is allocated by the physical distinction between tactile 2D shape features: Part 1 tested whether certain shape feature distinctions are perceived efficiently (pre-attentively), as opposed to inefficiently (attention dependent). Part 2 explored what discrimination strategies are at use, and with what level of attention (from pre to focused).
It was found (Part 1) that the straight line ↔ angle distinction and the curve ↔ straight line distinction are perceived pre-attentively; the angle ↔ curve distinction attention dependent. Furthermore (Part 2), three discrimination strategies were identified: The figure identity strategy has three levels of attention; it ranks a feature conjunction as the most important target-discriminating feature. The global characteristics strategy and the touch vision strategy have two levels of attention; both rank one separate feature as the most important target-discriminating feature. Despite this, they are equally fast, accurate, and after-decision certain.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Illusion of Wet Sensation by Controlling Temperature and Softness of Dry Cloth
Nächstes Kapitel It’s All About the Subject - Options to Improve Psychometric Procedure Performance
Fußnoten
1
“(…) organized, domain-specific, nonobligatory pattern of decisions activated when confronted with (…) problems, and goal directed to attain the solution of the problem” [26, p. 12].
 
2
A pilot study, with one congenitally and two early blinded females (see footnote 3) [27], assessed the number of trials; the shape feature distinctions (e.g. size); the a priori themes [29] used for scoring Part 2.
 
3
They had no cognitive delay or impairment, and no physical disability. They had never before explored the Moon characters (see footnote 4). They were offered a remuneration to compensate for their time.
 
4
Moon were invented in 1845, to allow reading by haptic touch: Straight lines and curves form nine basic shapes, rotated to create the 26 letters of the English alphabet ([32]. Cf. Table 1, e.g. Trial 1: shape features 1, 2, 3 and 5 = Moon “m”, “l”, “y” and “e”, respectively). The Moon “h”, “n”, “o”, “z”, “8”, and the contraction for “and” all comprise more than one shape feature; however always a curve, thus were included in the test material (cf. Table 1, e.g. Trial 18).
 
5
The experiment took place in a quiet room, neutral in color. Distinct light sources, e.g. a specific lamp, were removed to minimize possible visual distractions; the general lighting of the room was lowered to minimize the color contrast between the (off-white) shape feature distinctions and the (blue) silicone mat. Before testing, the experimenter explained both the silicone mat – that it prevented the shape feature distinctions from moving around on the table – and the test itself. The test material was presented directly in front of the participant.
 
6
Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated: \( \chi_{\text{exploration time}}^{2} \left( 2\right) = 2 4.0,\,p = 0.000\,(\varepsilon = 0. 5 6) \) and \( \chi_{\text{after - decision certainty}}^{2} \left( 2\right) = 1 2. 6,\,p = 0.00 2\,(\varepsilon = 0. 6 5) \), thus the degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimate of sphericity.
 
7
For an example of incorrect targeting, see Table 1, Trial 11 (angle ↔ curve distinction): “Three figures with two angles and two figures with one angle”.
 
8
One was totally blinded about two years before this study and the other was congenitally blinded, with minimal visual shape perception in one eye and light perception in the other [27] until the age of 28; now totally blinded (for more than 20 years).
 
9
Leverne’s Test for Equality of Variances = 0.013.
 
10
“An angle has two lines.” “When the shape has more than two lines, then it is a curve (…).”
 
11
21 × 21 cm [25] vs. 13 × 5 cm; 11 distractors [25] vs. 4 distractors.
 
12
The touch vision strategy was not included in Graven’s [25] statistical analyses.
 
13
The figure identity strategy used (M) 17.7s [25] vs. 26.0s, and the global characteristics/touch vision strategy (M) 14.3s [25] vs. 20.9s (see footnote 12).
 
Literatur
1.
2.
Heller, M.A.: Gentaz, E: Psychology of Touch and Blindness. Psychology Press, New York (2014)
3.
Millar, S.: Space and Sense. Psychology Press, Hove (2008)
4.
Heller, M.A., Calcaterra, J.A., Burson, L.L., Tyler, L.A.: Tactual picture identification by blind and sighted people: effects of providing categorical information. Percept. Psychophys. 58, 310–323 (1996)CrossRef
5.
Pathak, K., Pring, L.: Tactual picture recognition in congenitally blind and sighted children. Appl. Cogn. Psych. 3, 337–350 (1989)CrossRef
6.
Lavie, N., Cox, S.: On the efficiency of visual selective attention: efficient visual search leads to inefficient distractor rejection. Psychol. Sci. 8, 395–398 (1997)CrossRef
7.
Lavie, N.: Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. J. Exp. Psychol.-Hum. Percept. Perform. 21, 451–468 (1995)CrossRef
8.
Lederman, S.J., Browse, R.A., Klatzky, R.L.: Haptic processing of spatially distributed information. Percept. Psychophys. 44, 222–232 (1988)CrossRef
9.
Millar, S.: Strategy choices by young Braille readers. Perception 13, 567–579 (1984)CrossRef
10.
Kennedy, J.M., Bai, J.: Haptic pictures: fit judgements predict identification, recognition memory, and confidence. Perception 31, 1013–1026 (2002)CrossRef
11.
Lavie, N., Lin, Z., Zokaei, N., Toma, V.: The role of perceptual load in object recognition. J. Exp. Psychol.-Hum. Percept. Perform. 35, 1346–1358 (2009)CrossRef
12.
Lavie, N., Tsal, Y.: Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Percept. Psychophys. 56, 183–197 (1994)CrossRef
13.
Wolfe, J., Robertson, L.: From Perception to Consciousness: Searching with Anne Treisman. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)CrossRef
14.
Treisman, A.M., Gelade, G.: A feature-integration theory of attention. Cogn. Psychol. 12, 97–136 (1980)CrossRef
15.
Treisman, A.: The perception of features and objects. In: Baddeley, A., Weiskrantz, L. (eds.) Attention: Selection, Awareness, and Control: A Tribute to Donald Broadbent, pp. 5–35. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)
16.
Treisman, A.: Features and objects: the fourteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. Q. J. Exp. Psychol.-A. 40, 201–237 (1988)CrossRef
17.
Treisman, A., Vieira, A., Hayes, A.: Automaticity and preattentive processing. Am. J. Psychol. 105, 341–362 (1992)CrossRef
18.
Lederman, S.J., Klatzky, R.L.: Relative availability of surface and object properties during early haptic processing. J. Exp. Psychol.-Hum. Percept. Perform. 23, 1680–1707 (1997)CrossRef
19.
Plaisier, M.A., Bergmann Tiest, W.M., Kappers, A.M.L.: Haptic pop-out in a hand sweep. Acta Psychol. 128, 368–377 (2008)CrossRef
20.
Plaisier, M.A., Bergmann Tiest, W.M., Kappers, A.M.L.: Salient features in 3-D haptic shape perception. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 71, 421–430 (2009)CrossRef
21.
Plaisier, M.A., Kappers, A.M.: Cold objects pop out! In: Kappers, A.M., van Erp, J.B., Bergmann Tiest, W.M., van der Helm, F.C. (eds.) EuroHaptics 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6192, pp. 219–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRef
22.
van Polanen, V., Bergmann Tiest, W.M., Kappers, A.M.L.: Haptic pop-out of movable stimuli. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 74, 204–215 (2012)CrossRef
23.
Sathian, K.: Practice makes perfect: sharper tactile perception in the blind. Neurology 54, 2203–2204 (2000)CrossRef
24.
Treisman, A.M., Paterson, R.: Emergent features, attention, and object perception. J. Exp. Psychol.-Hum. Percept. Perform. 10, 12–31 (1984)CrossRef
25.
Graven, T.: How blind individuals discriminate braille characters: an identification and comparison of three discrimination strategies. Br. J. Vis. Impair. 33, 80–95 (2015)CrossRef
26.
Ostad, S.A.: Strategic competence: issues of task-specific strategies in arithmetic. Nordic Stud. Math. Educ. 5, 7–32 (1997)
27.
28.
Aanstoos, C.M.: The think aloud method in descriptive research. J. Phenomenol. Psychol. 14, 243–266 (1983)CrossRef
29.
King, N.: Doing template analysis. In: Symon, G., Cassell, C. (eds.) Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges, pp. 426–450. SAGE Publications Ltd., London (2012)
30.
Graven, T.: Seeing Through Touch: When Touch Replaces Vision as the Dominant Sense Modality. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller AG & Co., Saarbrücken (2009)
31.
Spence, C., Nicholls, M.E.R., Driver, J.: The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality. Percept. Psychophys. 63, 330–336 (2001)CrossRef
32.
33.
Heller, M.A., Clyburn, S.: Global versus local processing in haptic perception of form. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 31, 574–576 (1993)CrossRef
34.
Lakatos, S., Marks, L.E.: Haptic form perception: relative salience of local and global features. Percept. Psychophys. 61, 895–908 (1999)CrossRef
35.
Soechting, J.F., Song, W., Flanders, M.: Haptic feature extraction. Cereb. Cortex 16, 1168–1180 (2006)CrossRef
36.
Persaud, N., McLeod, P., Cowey, A.: Post-decision wagering objectively measures awareness. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 257–261 (2007)CrossRef
37.
Dienes, Z., Scott, R.: Measuring unconscious knowledge: distinguishing structural knowledge and judgment knowledge. Psychol. Res. 69, 338–351 (2005)CrossRef
38.
39.
Landridge, D.: Phenomenological Psychology Theory. Research and Practice. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Harlow (2007)
40.
Lavie, N.: Visual feature integration and focused attention: response competition from multiple distractor features. Percept. Psychophys. 59, 543–556 (1997)CrossRef
41.
Graven, T.: When the discrimination strategy fails: revisiting the figure identity strategy, the global characteristics strategy, and the touch vision strategy. Br. J. Vis. Impair 34(2), 121–129 (2016)
42.
Ostad, S.A.: Cognitive subtraction in a developmental perspective: accuracy, speed-of- processing and strategy-use differences in normal and mathematically challenged children. Focus Learn. Prob. Math. 22, 18–31 (2000)
Metadaten
Titel
How Attention Is Allocated When Using Haptic Touch: Shape Feature Distinction and Discrimination Strategy
verfasst von
Torø Graven
Copyright-Jahr
2016
Buch
Haptics: Perception, Devices, Control, and Applications

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42320-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-42321-0

Copyright-Jahr: 2016

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42321-0_35

Neuer Inhalt

    Bildnachweise