Processing of sequential tactile patterns: effects of a neutral stimulus

The perception of a target pattern may be interfered with by the presentation of a nontarget pattern in close temporal and spatial proximity with it. The results from previous studies suggested that much of this interference is the result not of masking but of response competition, subjects responding with the nontarget instead of the target. Using a 4-to-2 paradigm in which four target patterns are mapped onto two responses, it was shown that neutral patterns (i.e., patterns with no responses associated with them) produce considerable interference. The amount of interference is less than that produced by patterns associated with incorrect responses but greater than that produced by patterns associated with correct responses. The amount of interference produced by neutral patterns did not vary as a function of the form of the neutral pattern (Experiments 1 and 2); however, the amount of interference did depend on the degree and nature of the similarity between the neutral and target patterns (Experiments 3 and 4). The results indicate that recent studies have underestimated the amount of interference due to masking and overestimated the amount due to response competition. Response competition may either hinder or help target categorization depending on the nontarget pattern.     

Tactile pattern perception by two fingers: Temporal interference and response competition

The identification of a spatial pattern (target) presented to one fingerpad may be interfered with by the presentation of a second pattern (nontarget) to either the same fingerpad or a second fingerpad. A portion of the interference appears to be due to masking and a portion to response competition. In the present study, vibrotactile spatial patterns were designed to extend over two fingerpads. Target and nontarget patterns were presented to the same two fingerpads with a temporal separation between the two patterns. The function relating target identification to the temporal separation between the target and nontarget was very similar to the functions obtained with one-finger patterns in temporal masking studies. Subsequent measurements showed that a substantial portion of the interference resulted from response competition. Pattern categorization was better when patterns were presented to two fingers on opposite hands than to two fingers on the same hand; however, there was more interference for patterns presented bilaterally than for patterns presented ipsilaterally. The results supported the conclusion that similar processes are involved in the perception of sequences of spatial patterns whether the patterns are presented to one or to two fingers.     

Identification of scanned and static tactile patterns

Most of the studies in which the interactions between target and nontarget spatial patterns have been examined have tested patterns that are generated statically. Static patterns are those in which all the elements of the pattern are presented at the same time and at a fixed location on the skin; however, most tactile information comes to the skin by means of patterns' being scanned across the surface of the skin. In the present study, the interactions between target and nontarget patterns were measured for patterns generated in both the static and the scanned modes. Nontarget patterns often interfere with the perception of target patterns. Using patterns generated in the static mode, previous studies have identified two factors that produce interference in pattern identification: response competition and masking. Masking, in turn, appears to be the result of temporal integration of the target and nontarget patterns, as well as the displacement of target features. In the present study, these factors were examined for patterns generated in both static and scanned modes. Regardless of the mode in which the patterns were generated, similar functions were obtained relating identification performance to the temporal separation between the target and the nontarget patterns. Although statically generated patterns are more easily identified than scanned patterns, particularly at brief durations, mechanisms such as response competition, temporal integration, and the displacement of target features appear to be factors that affect scanned patterns to nearly the same degree as static patterns.     

Tactile selective attention and temporal masking

The presentation of a nontarget stimulus to one fingerpad interferes with the identification of a target stimulus presented to a second fingerpad. This interference has been attributed to a failure of selective attention and, more specifically, to the nontarget’s eliciting a competing response. In the present study, the temporal interval between the target and nontarget was varied to determine the extent to which a nontarget primes a competing response. The results showed more interference when the nontarget was presented after the target than when it was presented before the target. Although still consistent with a response-competition explanation, this result offered no support for a priming explanation. The function relating the amount of interference to the temporal separation between the target and nontarget was similar to the functions obtained in studies of temporal masking, and this prompted a second experiment in which temporal masking was examined. These results, obtained with stimuli presented to the same fingerpad, indicate that response competition may be a major factor in temporal masking and that similar processes are involved in temporal masking and selective attention.     

Perceptual processing at adjacent location son a single finger: Masking and response competition

When target patterns and nontarget patterns are presented either to the same or to adjacent locations on the distal pad of the index finger, the amount of interference in identifying targets depends on both the shape and the location of the nontarget (Horner, 1997). In the present study, the question of whether such interference is caused by masking (the masker in some way distorts the initial representation of the target) or by response competition (the observer mistakenly responds with the masker, rather than with the target) was investigated. A 4-to-2 paradigm was used (Craig, 1995), in which four stimuli were mapped to only two responses. Targets and nontargets were randomly selected from the set of four stimuli and presented to the same or adjacent locations on the same fingerpad. Both the distal pad and the medial pad of the index finger were tested, because innervation density varies proximodistally on the distal pad, but not on the medial pad. The results indicated that response competition was an important factor limiting perception. Furthermore, perception was affected by varying location on the distal pad, but not on the medial pad. Finally, varying location on the distal pad affected perception only when responses were based on pattern shape, not when responses were based on direction of motion. The results are discussed in terms of differences in innervation density between adjacent locations and possible resultant differences in the spatial filtering properties of the skin.     

Perceptual processing at adjacent locations on a single finger: masking and response competition

When target patterns and nontarget patterns are presented either to the same or to adjacent locations on the distal pad of the index finger, the amount of interference in identifying targets depends on both the shape and the location of the nontarget (Horner, 1997). In the present study, the question of whether such interference is caused by masking (the masker in some way distorts the initial representation of the target) or by response competition (the observer mistakenly responds with the masker, rather than with the target) was investigated. A 4-to-2 paradigm was used (Craig, 1995), in which four stimuli were mapped to only two responses. Targets and nontargets were randomly selected from the set of four stimuli and presented to the same or adjacent locations on the same fingerpad. Both the distal pad and the medial pad of the index finger were tested, because innervation density varies proximodistally on the distal pad, but not on the medial pad. The results indicated that response competition was an important factor limiting perception. Furthermore, perception was affected by varying location on the distal pad, but not on the medial pad. Finally, varying location on the distal pad affected perception only when responses were based on pattern shape, not when responses were based on direction of motion. The results are discussed in terms of differences in innervation density between adjacent locations and possible resultant differences in the spatial filtering properties of the skin.     

Interference in localizing tactile stimuli

A series of experiments investigated the ability of subjects to localize a tactile stimulus in the presence of an additional, extraneous tactile stimulus. The subject's task was to localize a tactile stimulus (target) presented at one of several locations on his or her left index fingerpad. The target stimulus, generated on a 6 x 24 array of stimulators, was presented either by itself or in the presence of an extraneous stimulus (masker) that either preceded or followed the target. The localizability of the target was affected by the temporal separation between the target and masker in much the same way as previous studies have shown identification of tactile patterns to be affected. Unlike previous identification results, presenting the masking stimulus to the same location as the target interfered with localizability, although not as much as did presenting the masker to a different location. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for identification and discrimination of tactile patterns.     

The effect of shape and location on temporal masking of spatial vibrotactile patterns

Target patterns presented to uncued locations on a single fingerpad were followed by either same-shape (SS) maskers or different-shape (DS) maskers presented to either the same location (SLoc) or a different location (DLoc). DS maskers interfered with identification more when they were at SLoc than when they were at Dloc, but the reverse was true for SS maskers; they interfered more at DLoc than at SLoc. When targets were presented to cued locations, performance in the absence of maskers improved, but the pattern of interference from maskers resembled that for uncued presentation. The proportion of masker responses on incorrect trials revealed that both temporal masking and response competition may be involved in the effects of location on pattern identification.     

A comparison of discrimination and identification of vibrotactile patterns

Both discrimination and identification tasks have been used to assess subjects' abilities to perceive vibratory spatial patterns presented to the skin. The present study examined discrimination and identification performance under comparable conditions. In Experiment 1, subjects attempted to discriminate a pair of patterns on some blocks of trials and to identify both members of a pair on other blocks. For both tasks, the time between the members of the pair was varied. Discrimination performance could be predicted accurately from identification data. Analysis of performance on identification trials indicated that subjects used discriminability information to identify pairs. In Experiment 2, discrimination and identification were compared when the temporal separation between patterns was fixed and a masking stimulus followed each pattern after a variable delay. Results suggest that temporal masking, rather than the time available for processing pattern information, is the major limitation in both discrimination and identification of sequences of tactile patterns.     

A tactile metacontrast effect

Vibrotactile patterns, generated on the 6×24 array of the Optacon, were presented to subjects’ left index fingertips. The subjects identified these patterns in the absence of any masking stimuli and in the presence of spatially adjacent masking stimuli. The amount of interference in recognizing the patterns was measured as a function of the interval between target and masker onsets. Masking functions similar to those reported in visual metacontrast studies were found; that is, more masking occurred when masker onset followed target onset by 25 to 50 msec than when onsets were simultaneous. Subjects showed more metacontrast when masker energy was reduced, a finding paralleled in the visual literature. The relevance of some models of visual metacontrast to the tactile findings is discussed.     

Serial processing of visual spatial patterns in a search paradigm

Previous experiments in this laboratory employing a search paradigm have found highly significant differences in the detectability of a briefly exposed target pattern as a function of the spatial location of the target when it is presented simultaneously with a number of discriminably different nontarget patterns. These detectability differences, at loci equidistant from the fovea, could not be accounted for by any known variation in retinal spatial resolution or by differential lateral masking effects of the target by nearby nontarget patterns. These observations led to the hypothesis that the target in these experiments was detected by a serial mechanism which "scanned" a persisting but rapidly degrading neural representation of the visual scene with increasing detection failures the later in time the scan processed the location occupied by the target. If this hypothesis is correct, then target detectability should vary inversely with the number of stimuli which must be examined. The present experiment confirmed this expectation. A mathematical model of such a serial scanning process also predicts other, less obvious, effects on target detectability which were observed when the number of nontarget patterns was changed.     

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 fingers (on 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Masking and the identification of characters presented simultaneously and sequentially to the parafovea

Summary The effects of masking and simultaneous vs sequential exposure on identification accuracy of parafoveally presented pairs of stimuli were examined in four experiments. When masking figures were continuously present in positions not occupied by stimulus characters, accuracy of identification was significantly poorer on the relatively central member of a pair when members were simultaneously exposed and when the central member was exposed second. When masking figures were not used, performance was significantly poorer on the central member only when pair members were exposed simultaneously. Requiring the identification of both members of the pair produced a different ordering of overall accuracy among the simultaneous and sequential conditions from when only one member was identified. It was concluded that asymmetric lateral inhibition of feature extraction operated only when target and nontarget were simultaneously present. An additional source of asymmetric disruption occurs when masking figures flanking the target change before or with the appearance of the target.     

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.     

Detectability as a function of target location: effects of spatial configuration

Marked differences in detectability as a function of spatial location, a "detectability gradient," are observed when subjects are required to detect a briefly exposed target pattern of uncertain location in the presence of a number of nontarget patterns. Target detectability also is inversely related to the number of nontarget patterns which are present in this search paradigm. These previous findings provide strong evidence for a serial process in which increasing probability of error occurs during a scan of a rapidly degrading neural representation of the visual image following a brief exposure to the stimuli. It is not yet established whether this scan is attentional or perceptual in nature. The present experiments test the hypothesis of an attentional scan by presenting the target and nontarget patterns in spatially segregated groups. If the scan is attentional, then target detectability under these circumstances would be expected to exhibit the characteristic phenomenon of "group processing"--a close clustering of detection performance for targets located within a group and large differences in detectability across groups. As no evidence for group processing was observed, the results fail to support the view that the scan is attentional in nature but are fully consistent with a nonattentional scan.     

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.     

Modeling spatial effects in visualtactile saccadic reaction time

Saccadic reaction time (SRT) to visual targets tends to be shorter when nonvisual stimuli are presented in close temporal or spatial proximity, even when subjects are instructed to ignore the accessory input. Here, we investigate visualtactile interaction effects on SRT under varying spatial configurations. SRT to bimodal stimuli was reduced by up to 30 msec, in comparison with responses to unimodal visual targets. In contrast to previous findings, the amount of multisensory facilitation did not decrease with increases in the physical distance between the target and the nontarget but depended on (1) whether the target and the nontarget were presented in the same hemifield (ipsilateral) or in different hemifields (contralateral), (2) the eccentricity of the stimuli, and (3) the frequency of the vibrotactile nontarget. The time-window-of-integration (TWIN) model for SRT (Colonius & Diederich, 2004) is shown to yield an explicit characterization of the observed multisensory spatial interaction effects through the removal of the peripheral-processing effects of stimulus location and tactile frequency.