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.     

Vibrotactile masking: The role of response competition

When two tactile patterns, a target and a nontarget pattern, are presented in close temporal proximity to the same location, the nontarget pattern may interfere with the identification of the target. A series of experiments examined the extent to which the interference in target identification results from masking (interference in the representation of the target at an early stage of processing) or from response competition. A response competition view of pattern perception holds that both the target and nontarget are fully processed to the level of evoking responses. Interference is produced when subjects select the nontarget rather than the target. This view was tested with a paradigm developed in studies of selective attention. Pairs of tactile patterns were presented to subjects’ left index fingerpads. The amount of interference produced by a nontarget that is physically different from a target depends on whether the nontarget is associated with the same response as the target or a different response. The amount of masking also depends on the set of target and nontarget patterns that are used. The results support the conclusion that subjects have available a representation of both the target and the nontarget and that a substantial portion of the interference previously attributed to masking may be due to response competition.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Modeling spatial effects in visual-tactile 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 visual-tactile 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.     

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.     

Influences of target and nontarget shapes on target identification

The orientation of a nontarget in a location-cuing paradigm has been shown to affect accuracy of identification of target orientation when modified plus-signs (Ts) are the stimuli. In the current study, similar effects were found with Landolt C (C) stimuli. Both shapes of targets were identified by orientation. Moreover, targets were affected by nontargets whether both target and nontarget were the same shape or if they were different shapes. A single nontarget with an orientation that matched that of the target improved accuracy of identification of target orientation, whereas a nontarget with an orientation that did not match that of the target impaired accuracy of identification of target orientation, even though the nontargets appeared in locations that were never cued and could never contain targets. The data are consistent with either the Variable and Permeable Filters metaphor or a response competition account. Received: 1 July 1998 / Accepted: 22 October 1998     

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.     

On the “recovery” of masked targets

Subjective magnitude characteristics for vibrotaction were determined by the method of numerical magnitude balance for three body sites varying in the density of neural innervation: the distal pad of the middle finger, the thenar eminence, and the volar forearm. The effects of a rigid surround upon threshold and the rate of growth of subjective intensity were measured. The results support the suggestion that absolute threshold and the rate of growth of subjective intensity are inverse functions of the total number of sensory neural units stimulated rather than being related simply to the density of neural innervation.     

Discrimination threshold for haptic volume perception of fingers and phalanges

Humans exhibit a remarkable ability to discriminate variations in object volume based on natural haptic perception. The discrimination thresholds for the haptic volume perception of the whole hand are well known, but the discrimination thresholds for haptic volume perception of fingers and phalanges are still unknown. In the present study, two psychophysical experiments were performed to investigate haptic volume perception in various fingers and phalanges. The configurations of both experiments were completely dependent on haptic volume perception from the fingers and phalanges. The participants were asked to blindly discriminate the volume variation of regular solid objects in a random order by using the distal phalanx, medial phalanx, and proximal phalanx of their index finger, middle finger, ring finger, and little finger. The discrimination threshold of haptic volume perception gradually decreases from the little finger to the index finger as well as from the proximal phalanx to the distal phalanx. Overall, both the shape of the target and the part of the finger in contact with the target significantly influence the precision of haptic perception of volume. This substantial data set provides detailed and compelling perspectives on the haptic system, including for discrimination of the spatial size of objects and for performing more general perceptual processes.     

Tactile pattern discrimination at adjacent locations along the proximal-distal axis of the index finger

A discrimination task was used to examine how locations on the glabrous skin of the terminal and middle phalanges of the index finger affect the perceived shape of tactile patterns. On each trial, a pair of same-shape or different-shape patterns was presented successively on the distal half, on the proximal half, or on both halves of a phalanx. Observers responded "same" or "different" depending on the perceived pattern shape. Performance was compared between the two phalanges, with two different pattern sets. For patterns at separate locations, performance was uniformly poor. For patterns at the same location, performance was better on the distal halves than on the proximal halves of both phalanges for one pattern set but not for the other. Performance was best on the distal half of the terminal phalanx. The results are discussed in terms of the densities of innervation of first-order afferents.     

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.     

Spatiotemporal competition and task-relevance shape the spatial distribution of emotional interference during rapid visual processing: Evidence from gaze-contingent eye-tracking

People’s ability to perceive rapidly presented targets can be disrupted both by voluntary encoding of a preceding target and by spontaneous attention to salient distractors. Distinctions between these sources of interference can be found when people search for a target in multiple rapid streams instead of a single stream: voluntary encoding of a preceding target often elicits subsequent perceptual lapses across the visual field, whereas spontaneous attention to emotionally salient distractors appears to elicit a spatially localized lapse, giving rise to a theoretical account suggesting that emotional distractors and subsequent targets compete spatiotemporally during rapid serial visual processing. We used gaze-contingent eye-tracking to probe the roles of spatiotemporal competition and memory encoding on the spatial distribution of interference caused by emotional distractors, while also ruling out the role of eye-gaze in driving differences in spatial distribution. Spontaneous target perception impairments caused by emotional distractors were localized to the distractor location regardless of where participants fixated. But when emotional distractors were task-relevant, perceptual lapses occurred across both streams while remaining strongest at the distractor location. These results suggest that spatiotemporal competition and memory encoding reflect a dual-route impact of emotional stimuli on target perception during rapid visual processing.