James C. Craig

Vibrotactile difference thresholds for intensity and the effect of a masking stimulus

Vibrotactile difference thresholds for intensity were measured at several intensity levels of a test stimulus in the absence of a masking vibration and in the presence of three different amplitudes of a masking vibration. The test stimulus was a 160-Hz vibration delivered to the right index finger. The masking stimulus was a 160-Hz vibration delivered to the right little finger. For the same amplitudes of the test stimulus, △I varied as a direct function of the amplitude of the masking vibration. The smallest △Is resulted from measurements made in the absence of the masking stimulus. The Weber fraction, △I/I, was constant only for the more intense test stimuli in the absence of any masking stimuli. Independent of the presence or level of the masker, the Weber fraction for all stimuli approached approximately the same value, .25, when the test stimuli were raised to 20-dB sensation level. A model is proposed to account for the increase in the Weber fraction as a function of masker intensity and to predict masked thresholds.

Difference threshold for intensity of tactile stimuli

The difference threshold (DL) for brief tactile stimuli (taps) and vibrotactile stimuli was determined using a 2IFC procedure. The measurements were made at several intensities both in quiet and in the presence of a background vibration. The results show that in the absence of background vibration the DLs for higher intensity stimuli are similar for both taps and vibration, whereas at lower intensities the DL is larger for taps. In the presence of background vibration the DL for vibratory stimuli is elevated to a much greater extent than it is for tap stimuli. The DL is affected by both the intensity of the signal and the intensity of the background vibration.

Tactile pattern perception and its perturbations

One of the problems encountered in conveying information to the skin by means of vibratory patterns is that presenting patterns, such as letters of the alphabet, in close spatial and temporal proximity, may result in considerable masking. Generally, there is more interference when the masking stimulus follows the target (backward masking) than when it precedes it (forward masking). Masking has also been demonstrated with vibrotactile patterns derived from speech signals. Masking may be reduced by increasing the temporal and spatial separation between patterns; however, other problems may arise when such separations are made. Because stimulus onset asynchrony appears to be the critical temporal dimension for masking, it may prove difficult to reduce masking by increasing the temporal separation between patterns without also reducing the rate at which the patterns are presented. Increasing the spatial separation between patterns may lead to problems in combining the patterns from spatially distinct sites on the skin. This latter difficulty may be due to problems in attending to several sites of stimulation simultaneously.

TACTILE ATTENTION AND THE PERCEPTION OF MOVING TACTILE STIMULI

Three experiments investigated the ability of subjects to identify the direction of movement of a pattern across the skin. In Experiments 1 and 2, subjects were required to identify the direction of movement of a pattern presented to one fingerpad while another moving pattern was being presented to an adjacent fingerpad. Subjects were instructed to attend only to the target location. The results showed that accuracy was consistently higher and reaction times were consistently faster when the two patterns moved in the same direction than when they moved in opposite directions. Both effects were largest when the two patterns were presented simultaneously. In Experiment 3, the nontarget location was the contralateral hand. In this case, performance was not affected by the presentation of the nontarget. Combined, the results suggest that movement information is processed across adjacent fingers even when subjects are explicitly instructed to attend only to one finger. Subjects do appear to be able to restrict attention to a single hand.

Temporal order and tactile patterns

Temporal orderjudgments (TOJs) were obtained for tactile stimulipresented to-subjects’ fingerpads. In one set ofmeasurements, pairs of spatial patterns were presented successivelyto a single fingerpad (same-site condition), to two fingers on the same hand-(ipsilateral condition), or to two fingers on opposite hands (bilateral condition). The subjects were instructed to report which one of the two patterns was presented first. TOJs were more accurate in the same-site conditionthan in either the ipsilateral or the bilateral conditions. In the ipsilateral and bilateral conditions, performance improved whenjudging which one oftwo locations received a stimulusfirst, although performance levels were still lower than in the same-site condition. Increasing the size of the pattern set from which the two patterns to be judged were drawn had only a slight effect on samesite performance and no effect on ipsilateral/bilateral performance; however, changing the nature of the patterns had a considerable effect on same-site performance and a smaller effect on ipsilateral/bilateral performance. Introducing an intensity imbalance between members of the pair of stimuli also had a large effect on same-site TOJ5: a less intense stimulus tended to be judged as being presented first. In the bilateral condition, however, therewas a small effect in the reverse direction: more intense stimuli tended to be judged as being presented first. The intensity imbalance had no effect in the ipsilateral condition. The results suggest that different mechanisms are responsible for TOJs for patterns presented to the same-siteand to separate sites and, furthermore, that separate sites may constitute separate channels for spatial information.

Vibrotactile masking and the persistence of tactual features

Subjects are more accurate in identifying a vibrotactile pattern when it is presented in isolation than when it is presented in temporal and spatial contiguity with a second vibrotactile pattern. When the temporal separation between the two patterns is relatively long (greater than 200 to 300 msec), there is more interference when the target pattern is presented second than when it is presented first, It was hypothesized that if features of a vibrotactile pattern persist for relatively long durations, the perception of a subsequent pattern might be interfered with. Two experiments investigated the persistence of tactual features. In both experiments, subjects were presented with two patterns and the temporal separation between the patterns was varied. The subjects were required to identify the second pattern. The results of Experiment 1 showed that at relatively long stimulus onset asynchronies, the subjects often erred and responded with a pattern containing more lines than were contained in the target pattern. Also, the subjects often overestimated the number of lines contained in the target patterns. These findings support the idea that features of vibrotactile patterns persist for relatively long durations and that these features may be integrated with subsequently presented patterns. The results of Experiment 2 indicated that the persisting representation was a veridical copy of the presented pattern and lasted as long as 1,200 msec. The results are discussed in terms of a tactile sensory register.

Response competition: A major source of interference in a tactile identification task

Two experiments investigated the ability of subjects to identify a moving, tactile stimulus. In both experiments, the subjects were presented with a target to their left index fingerpad and a nontarget (also moving) to their left middle fingerpad. Subjects were instructed to attend only to the target location and to respond “1” if the stimulus moved either to the left or up the finger, and to respond “2” if the stimulus moved either right or down the finger. The results showed that accuracy was better and reaction times were faster when the target and nontarget moved in the same direction than when they moved in different directions. When the target and nontarget moved in different directions, accuracy was significantly better and reaction times were significantly faster when the two stimuli had the same assigned response than when they had different responses. The results provide support for the conclusion that movement information is processed across adjacent fingers to the level of incipient response activation, even when subjects attempt to focus their attention on one location on the skin.

The effect of spatial orientation on the perception of moving tactile stimuli

Previous studies have shown that the perception of spatial patterns, such as letters, presented to the hand is affected by the spatial orientation of the hand. The present study investigated how the perception of direction of motion across the fingerpads changes with the position of the hand in space. The moving stimuli were generated on two displays. In one condition, the displays were placed horizontally in front of the subject, with the subject’s thumb (target site) and index finger (nontarget site) placed flat on the displays. In a second condition, the displays were vertically oriented and gripped between the thumb and index finger. Using a selective-attention paradigm in which subjects are instructed to respond only to the direction of motion at the target site, performance was still affected by the direction of motion at the nontarget site. Changing the orientation of the displays changed the effectiveness of the nontarget in interfering with the identification of the target movement. Nontarget stimuli that produced no interference in the horizontal orientation did so in the vertical, and vice versa. It appears that subjects are not using the local direction of movement across the fingerpads to judge the relative direction of movement at the two sites; rather, they are using the external direction of movement.

Perceptual processing of adjacent and nonadjacent tactile nontargets

Previous research has shown that subjects appear unable to restrict processing to a single finger and ignore a stimulus presented to an adjacent finger. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that, at least for moving stimuli, an adjacent nontarget is fully processed to the level of incipient response activation. The present study replicated and expanded upon these original findings. The results of Experiment 1 showed that an equally large response-competition effect occurred when the nontarget was presented to adjacent and nonadjacent fingers4on the same hand). The results of Experiment 2 showed that the effects observed in Experiment 1 (and in previous studies) were also obtained with stationary stimuli. Although small, there was some indication in the results of Experiment 2 that interference may dissipate more rapidly with distance with stationary stimuli. An additional finding was that interference effects were observed in both experiments with temporal separations between the target and nontarget of up to 100 msec. In Experiment 3, target and nontarget stimuli were presented to opposite hands. Although reduced, interference was still evident with target and nontarget stimuli presented to opposite hands. Varying the physical distance between hands did not produce any change in the amount of interference. The results suggest that the focus of attention on the skin extends nearly undiminished across the fingers of one hand and is not dependent upon the physical distance between sites of stimulation.

Vibrotactile masking: A comparison of energy and pattern maskers.

Subjects were required to identify vibrotactile patterns presented to their fingertips. The patterns, letters of the alphabet, were presented singly or in the presence of other vibrotactile masking stimuli. Two types of masking stimuli were used: an energy masker and a pattern masker. The effectiveness of these two types of maskers in interfering with letter recognition was tested, using them as forward and as backward maskers and presenting them at several different levels of intensity. The results showed more masking by the pattern masker, more backward than forward masking, and more masking as intensity increased. In addition, compared with the energy masker, the pattern masker showed both a greater difference between forward and backward masking and a greater increase in masking as masker intensity increased. The results are discussed in terms of a two-factor model of vibrotactfle masking.