When holding a small-scale model of Ames's trapezoidal window with the arms fully extended, several observers experience a striking proprioceptive distortion (eg one hand appears farther from the other, or one arm appears longer than the other). However, data from a matching experiment suggest that the proprioceptive misalignment of the hands is, in fact, rather less than the apparent slant of the window when this is not held. This finding argues against a ‘visual-capture’ account, supports an explanation in terms of bimodal integrative processes, and underscores the importance of supplementing phenomenological observations with objective measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlaisDBurrD, 2004“The ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration”Current Biology14257–262
2.
AmesA, 1951“Visual perception and the rotating trapezoidal window”Psychological Monographs65 (whole number 324)
3.
AtkinsJ EFiserJJacobsR A, 2001“Experience-dependent visual cue integration based on consistencies between visual and haptic percepts”Vision Research41449–461
4.
van BeersR JSittigA CDenier van der GonJ J, 1999“Integration of proprioceptive and visual position-information: an experimentally supported model”Journal of Neurophysiology811355–1364
5.
van BeersR JWolpertD MHaggardP, 2002“When feeling is more important than seeing in sensorimotor adaptation”Current Biology12834–837
6.
BerkeleyG, 1709An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision (London: J M Dent)
7.
BrunoNCuttingJ E, 1988“Minimodularity and the perception of layout”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General177161–170
8.
CuttingJ EVishtonP M, 1995“Perceiving layout and knowing distances”, in Perception of Space and Motion Eds EpsteinWRogersS (San Diego, CA: Academic Press) pp 69–117
9.
ErnstM OBanksM S, 2002“Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion”Nature415429–432
ErnstM OBülthoffH H, 2004“Merging the senses into a robust percept”Trends in Cognitive Sciences8162–169
12.
GepshteinSBanksM S, 2003“Viewing geometry determines how vision and haptics combine in size perception”Current Biology13483–488
13.
GuestSSpenceC, 2003“Tactile dominance in speeded discrimination of textures”Experimental Brain Research150201–207
14.
HayJ CPickH LIkedaK, 1965“Visual capture produced by prism spectacles”Psychonomic Science2215–216
15.
KilpatrickF P, 1961“Assumptions and perception: three experiments”, in Explorations in Transactional Psychology Ed. KilpatrickF P (New York: New York University Press) pp 257–289
16.
McDonnellP MDuffettJ, 1972“Vision and touch: a reconsideration of conflict between the two senses”Canadian Journal of Psychology26171–180
17.
MaravitaASpenceCDriverJ, 2003“Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach”Current Biology13R531–R539
18.
Mon-WilliamsMTresilianJ RMcIntoshR DMilnerD, 2001“Monocular and binocular distance cues: Insights from visual form agnosia I (of III)”Experimental Brain Research139127–136
19.
NewellF NErnstM OTjanBBülthoffH H, 2001“Viewpoint dependence in visual and haptic object recognition”Psychological Science1237–42
20.
PavaniFSpenceCDriverJ, 2000“Visual capture of touch: out-of-body experiences with rubber gloves”Psychological Science11353–359
21.
PiagetJ, 1937La construction du réel chez l'enfant (Neuchâtel: Delachoux et Nestlé)
22.
PickH LWarrenD HDayJ C, 1969“Sensory conflict in judgments of spatial direction”Perception & Psychophysics6203–205
23.
RockIVictorJ, 1964“Vision and touch: an experimentally created conflict between the two senses”Science27285–292
24.
RossettiYDesmurgetMPrablancC, 1995“Vectorial coding of movement: Vision, proprioception, or both?”Journal of Neurophysiology74457–463
25.
Taylor-ClarkeMJacobsenPHaggardP, 2004“Keeping the world a constant size: object constancy in human touch”Nature Neuroscience7219–220
