Visual–tactile carry-over effects of global/local processing (attention to the whole, versus the details) have been reported under active touch conditions. We investigated whether carry-over effects of global/local processing also occur for passive touch and whether global/local processing has differential effects on affective and discriminative aspects of touch. Participants completed two tactile tasks involving pleasantness rating and discrimination of a set of tactile vibrations before and after completing a version of the Navon task that encouraged a focus on the global (n = 30), local (n = 30), or both (n = 30) features of a series of visual stimuli. In line with previous research suggesting a link between global processing and positive emotion, global processing increased pleasantness ratings of high-frequency (but not low-frequency) tactile vibrations. Local processing did not improve the ability to discriminate between vibrations of different frequencies, however. There was some evidence of a tactile–visual carry-over effect; prior local processing of tactile vibrations reduced global precedence during the Navon task in the control group. We have shown carry-over effects of global versus local processing on passive touch perception. These findings provide further evidence suggesting that a common perceptual mechanism determines processing level across modalities and show for the first time that prior global processing affects the pleasantness of touch.
BarM. (2009). A cognitive neuroscience hypothesis of mood and depression. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(11), 456–463. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.08.009
2.
BassoM. R., SchefftB. K., RisM. D., & DemberW. N. (1996). Mood and global-local visual processing. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2(3), 249–255. doi: 10.1017/S1355617700001193
3.
BouvetL., RoussetS., ValdoisS., & DonnadieuS. (2011). Global precedence effect in audition and vision: Evidence for similar cognitive styles across modalities. Acta Psychologica, 138(2), 329–335. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.08.004
4.
CallawayE., & DemboD. (1958). Narrowed attention: A psychological phenomenon that accompanies a certain physiological change. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 79(1), 74–90. doi: 10.1001/archneurpsyc.1958.02340010092008
5.
ChunM. M., GolombJ. D., & Turk-BrowneN. B. (2011). A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 73–101. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100427
6.
CrawfordJ. R., & HenryJ. D. (2004). The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 245–265. doi: 10.1348/0144665031752934
7.
DerryberryD., & ReedM. A. (1998). Anxiety and attentional focusing: Trait, state and hemispheric influences. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(4), 745–761. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00117-2
8.
DerryberryD. & TuckerD. M. (1994). Motivating the focus of attention. In NiedenthalP. M. & KitayamaS. (Eds.), The heart's eye: Emotional influences in perception and attention (pp. 167–196). San Diego, California: Academic Press.
9.
DysonB. J. (2009). Perceptual organization. In PlackC. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of auditory science: Auditory perception (pp. 177–206). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
10.
EssickG. K., JamesA., & McGloneF. P. (1999). Psychophysical assessment of the affective components of non-painful touch. Neuroreport, 10(10), 2083–2087. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199907130-00017
11.
EssickG. K., McGloneF., DancerC., FabricantD., RaginY., PhillipsN., … & GuestS. (2010). Quantitative assessment of pleasant touch. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(2), 192–203. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.02.003
12.
ForsterJ. (2011). Local and global cross-modal influences between vision and hearing, tasting, smelling, or touching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(3), 364–389. doi: 10.1037/a0023175
13.
ForsterJ., & DannenbergL. (2010). GLOMO(sys): A systems account of global versus local processing. Psychological Inquiry, 21(3), 175–197. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2010.487849
14.
FredricksonB. L., & BraniganC. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19(3), 313–332. doi: 10.1080/02699930441000238
15.
FriedmanR. S., & ForsterJ. (2010). Implicit affective cues and attentional tuning: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 875–893. doi: 10.1037/a0020495
16.
GallaceA., & SpenceC. (2011). To what extent do gestalt grouping principles influence tactile perception? Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 538–561. doi: 10.1037/a0022335
17.
GasperK., & CloreG. L. (2002). Attending to the big picture: Mood and global versus local processing of visual information. Psychological Science, 13(1), 34–40. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00406
18.
HarrisJ. A., ArabzadehE., MooreC. A., & CliffordC. W. (2007). Noninformative vision causes adaptive changes in tactile sensitivity. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27(27), 7136–7140. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2102-07.2007
19.
HarrisJ. A., HarrisI. M., & DiamondM. (2001). Topography of tactile working memory. The Journal of Neuroscience, 21(20), 8262–8269.
20.
HempelT., & AltinsoyE. (2005). Multmodal user interfaces: Designing media for the auditory and the tactile channel. In ProctorR. W., & VuK.-P. L. (Eds.), Handbook of human factors in web design (pp. 134–155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
21.
IvryR. B., & RobertsonL. C. (1998). The two sides of perception. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
22.
Johansen-BergH., & LloydD. M. (2000). The physiology and psychology of selective attention to touch. Frontiers in Bioscience, 5, d894–d904. doi: 10.2741/A558
23.
KantI. (1999). Critique of pure reason. (J. M. D. Meiklejohn, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).
24.
KimchiR. (1992). Primacy of wholistic processing and global local paradigm: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 24–38. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.24
25.
KimchiR., & PalmerS. E. (1982). Form and texture in hierarchically constructed patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(4), 521–535.
26.
KinchlaR. A., & WolfeJ. M. (1979). Order of visual processing: Top-down, bottom-up or middle-out. Perception and Psychophysics, 25(3), 225–231. doi: 10.3758/BF03202991
27.
KoskinenE., KaaresojaT., & LaitinenP. (2008). Feel-good touch: Finding the most pleasant tactile feedback for a mobile touch screen button. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces. ACM.
28.
LakatosS., & MarksL. E. (1999). Haptic form perception: Relative salience of local and global features. Perception and Psychophysics, 61(5), 895–908. doi: 10.3758/BF03206904
29.
LedermanS. J., & KlatzkyR. L. (1990). Haptic classification of common objects: Knowledge-driven exploration. Cognitive Psychology, 22(4), 421–459. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(90)90009-S
30.
LewisM. B., MillsC., HillsP. J., & WestonN. (2009). Navon letters affect face learning and face retrieval. Experimental Psychology, 56(4), 258–264. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.258
31.
MacraeC. N., & LewisH. L. (2002). Do I know you? Processing orientation and face recognition. Psychological Science, 13(2), 194–196. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00436
32.
MajorD. R. (1985). On the affective tone of simple sense-impressions. American Journal of Psychology, 7, 57–77. doi: 10.2307/1412037
33.
MartinM. (1979). Local and global processing: Role of sparsity. Memory and Cognition, 7(6), 476–484. doi: 10.3758/BF03198264
34.
McCabeC., RollsE. T., BilderbeckA., & McGloneF. (2008). Cognitive influences on the affective representation of touch and the sight of touch in the human brain. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(2), 97–108. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsn005
35.
MiramsL., PoliakoffE., BrownR. J., & LloydD. M. (2010). Vision of the body increases interference on the somatic signal detection task. Experimental Brain Research, 202(4), 787–794. doi: 10.1007/s00221-010-2185-7
36.
MiramsL., PoliakoffE., BrownR. J., & LloydD. M. (2012). Interoceptive and exteroceptive attention have opposite effects on subsequent somatosensory perceptual decision making. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(5), 926–938. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2011.636823
37.
MiramsL., PoliakoffE., BrownR. J., & LloydD. M. (2013). Brief body-scan meditation practice improves somatosensory perceptual decision making. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(1), 348–359. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2012.07.009
38.
NavonD. (1977). Forest before trees: Precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 353–383. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(77)90012-3
39.
PosnerM. I. (1994). Attention: the mechanisms of consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 91(16), 7398–7403. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.16.7398
40.
RipinR., & LazarsfeldP. F. (1937). The tactile-kinaesthetic perception of fabrics with emphasis on their relative pleasantness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 21, 198–224. doi: 10.1037/h0058436
41.
RobertsonL. C., EglyR., LambM. R., & KerthL. (1993). Spatial attention and cuing to global and local levels of hierarchical structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(3), 471–487.
42.
RoweG., HirshJ. B., & AndersonA. K. (2007). Positive affect increases the breadth of attentional selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(1), 383–388. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0605198104
43.
SpenceC., NichollsM. E., GillespieN., & DriverJ. (1998). Cross-modal links in exogenous covert spatial orienting between touch, audition, and vision. Perception & Psychophysics, 60(4), 544–557. doi: 10.3758/BF03206045
StylesE. (2005). Attention, perception, and memory: An integrated introduction. Hove: Psychology Press.
47.
Van KleekM. H. (1989). Hemispheric differences in global versus local processing of hierarchical visual stimuli by normal subjects: New data and a meta-analysis of previous studies. Neuropsychologia, 27(9), 1165–1178. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(89)90099-7
48.
VelmansM. (1996). The science of consciousness: Psychological, neuropsychological and clinical reviews. Florence, KY, US: Taylor & Francis.
49.
WadlingerH. A. & IsaacowitzD. M. (2006). Positive mood broadens visual attention to positive stimuli. Motivation and Emotion, 30(1), 87–99. doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9021-1
50.
WatsonD., ClarkL. A., & TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
51.
WertheimerM. (1997). Gestalt theory. In EllisW. D. (Ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology. (pp. 1–11). New York: Humanities Press.
52.
WestonN. J., PerfectT. J., SchoolerJ. W., & DennisI. (2008). Navon processing and verbalisation: A holistic/featural distinction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 587–611. doi: 10.1080/09541440701728557
53.
YovelI., RevelleW., & MinekaS. (2005). Who sees trees before forest? The obsessive-compulsive style of visual attention. Psychological science, 16(2), 123–129. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00792.x
