Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of vision and haptics on categorizing common objects

  • Short Report
  • Published:
Cognitive Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most research on object recognition and categorization centers on vision. However, these phenomena are likely influenced by the commonly used modality of touch. The present study tested this notion by having participants explore three-dimensional objects using vision and haptics in naming and sorting tasks. Results showed greater difficulty naming (recognizing) and sorting (categorizing) objects haptically. For both conditions, error increased from the concrete attribute of size to the more abstract quality of predation, providing behavioral evidence for shared object representation in vision and haptics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amedi A, Malach R, Hendler T, Peled S, Zohary E (2001) Visuo-haptic object-related activation in the ventral visual pathway. Nat Neurosci 4:324–330

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Amedi A, Jacobson G, Hendler T, Malach R, Zohary E (2002) Convergence of visual and tactile shape processing in the human lateral occipital complex. Cereb Cortex 12:1202–1212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Amedi A, von Kriegstein K, van Atteveldt NM, Beauchamp MS, Naumer MJ (2005) Functional imaging of human crossmodal identification and object recognition. Exp Brain Res 166:559–571

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Battig WF, Montague WE (1969) Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: a replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. J Exp Psychol Monogr 80:1–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biederman I (1987) Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychol Rev 94:115–147

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blajenkova O, Kozhevnikov M, Motes MA (2006) Object-spatial imagery: a new self-report imagery questionnaire. Appl Cognit Psychol 20:239–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capitani E, Laiacona M, Barbarotto R (1999) Gender affects word retrieval of certain categories in semantic fluency tasks. Cortex 35:273–278

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chan A, Butters N, Salmon D, McGuire K (1993) Dimensionality and clustering in semantic network of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Psychol Aging 8:411–419

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chan A, Butters N, Salmon D, Johnson S, Paulsen J, Swenson M (1995) Comparison of the semantic networks in patients with dementia and amnesia. Neuropsychology 9:177–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan A, Butters N, Salmon D (1997) The deterioration of semantic networks in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study. Neuropsychologia 35:241–248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chan A, Salmon D, De La Pena J (2001) Abnormal semantic network for ‘animals’ but not ‘tools’ in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Cortex 37:197–217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen H, Levy J (1986a) Cerebral and sex differences in the categorization of haptic information. Cortex 22:253–259

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen H, Levy J (1986b) Sex differences in categorization of tactile stimuli. Percept Mot Skills 63:83–86

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke T, Jakel F, Wallraven C, Bulthoff HH (2007) Multimodal similarity and categorization of novel three-dimensional objects. Neuropsychologia 45:484–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Craddock M, Lawson R (2009) Size-sensitive perceptual representations underlie visual and haptic object recognition. PLoS One 4:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshpande G, Hu X, Lacey S, Stilla R, Sathian K (2010) Object familiarity modulates effective connectivity during haptic shape perception. NeuroImage 49:1991–2000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Easton RD, Srinivas K, Greene AJ (1997) Vision and haptics share common representations: implicit and explicit memory within and between modalities. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 23:153–163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst MO, Banks MS (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415:429–433

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone R (1994) The role of similarity in categorization: providing a ground work. Cognition 123:125–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer R, Diesendruck G, Weinshall D, Hochstein S (2009) The development of category learning strategies: what makes a difference? Cognition 112:105–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henley NM (1969) A psychological study of the semantics of animal names. Dev Psychol 13:108–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Hills JM, Ernst MO, Banks MS, Landy MS (2002) Combining sensory information: mandatory fusion within but not between senses. Science 298:1630–1727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James TW, Humphrey GK, Gati JS, Servos P, Menon RS, Goodale MA (2002) Haptic study of three-dimensional objects activates extrastriate visual areas. Neurophychologia 40:1706–1714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimura D (1999) Sex and cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Klatzky RL, Loomis J, Lederman SJ, Wake H, Fujita N (1993) Haptic identification of objects and their depictions. Percept Psychophys 54:170–178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kozhevnikov M, Kosslyn SM, Shephard J (2005) Spatial versus object visualisers: a new characterization of cognitive style. Mem Cognit 33:710–726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey S, Campbell C (2006) Mental representation in visual/haptic crossmodal memory: evidence from interference effects. Q J Exp Psychol 59:361–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey S, Tal N, Amedi A, Sathian K (2009) A Putative model of multi-sensory object representation. Brain Topogr 21:269–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey S, Flueckiger P, Stilla R, Lava M, Sathian K (2010) Object familiarity modulates the relationship between visual object imagery and haptic shape perception. NeuroImage 49:1977–1990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL (1987) Hand movements: a window into haptic object recognition. Cognit Psychol 22:421–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL (2004) Haptic identification of common objects: effects of constraining the manual exploration process. Percept Psychophys 66:618–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Medin D, Schaffer M (1978) Context theory of classification learning. Psychol Rev 85:207–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar S, Al–Attar Z (2005) What aspects of vision facilitate haptic processing? Brain Cogn 59:258–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newell FN (2004) Crossmodal object recognition. In: Spence C, Stein BE (eds) The handbook of multisensory processes. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 123–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell FN, Ernst MO, Tjan BS, Bulthoff HH (2001) Viewpoint dependence in visual and haptic object recognition. Psychol Sci 12:37–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Norman JF, Norman HF, Clayton AM, Lianeknammy J, Zielke G (2004) The visual and haptic perception of natural object shape. Percept Psychophys 66:342–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky M (1986) Attention, similarity and the identification-categorization relationship. J Exp Psychol Gen 115:39–57

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual-Leone A, Hamilton RH (2001) The metamodal organization of the brain. Ann Rev Brain Res 134:427–445

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rock I, Victor J (1964) Vision and touch: an experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science 143:94–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sathian K (2004) Modality, quo vidas?: comment. Behav Brain Sci 27:413–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sathian K, Lacey S (2007) Journeying beyond classical somatosensory cortex. Can J Exp Psychol 61:254–264

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzer G, Kufer I, Wilkening F (1999) Learning categories by touch: on the development of holistic and analytic processing. Mem Cognit 27:868–877

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shimojo S, Shams L (2001) Sensory modalities are not separate modalities: plasticity and interactions. Curr Opin Neurobiol 11:505–509

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Overschelde JP, Rawson KA, Dunlosky J (2004) Category norms: an updated and expanded version of battig and montague 1969 norms. J Mem Lang 50:289–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods T, Newell FN (2004) Cross-modal recognition of objects and scenes. J Physiol 98:147–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Zangaladze A, Epstein CM, Grafton ST, Sathian K (1999) Involvement of visual cortex in tactile discrimination of orientation. Nature 401:587–590

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou YD, Fuster JM (2000) Visuo-tactile cross-modal associations in cortical somatosensory cells. Natl Acad Sci 97:9777–9782

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Susan Haag

Authors
  1. Susan Haag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan Haag.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haag, S. Effects of vision and haptics on categorizing common objects. Cogn Process 12, 33–39 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-010-0369-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-010-0369-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation