Masking of and by mechanical tactile stimuli was investigated as a function of spatial relations between the stimuli. Masking was stronger when the stimuli were applied to the same side of the body than when they were placed contralaterally to each other. Increasing the distance between the two stimuli decreased masking, but this effect was significant only in the case of ipsilateral masking. The results confirm those of former studies and are explained in terms of peripheral interactions as well as by the connections between the left and right somatosensory systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramskyO., CarmonA., & BentonA. L.Masking of and by tactile stimulation. Perception and Psychophysics, 1971, 10, 353–355.
2.
BirdJ.Parameters of double tactile stimulation. Cortex, 1964, 1, 256–258.
3.
CarmonA., & FingerS.Spatial and temporal interaction in tactile adaptation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1971, 32, 427–433.
4.
GilsonR. D.Vibrotactile masking: some spatial and temporal aspects. Perception and Psychophysics, 1969, 5, 176–180.
5.
HallidayA. M., & MingayR.Retroactive raising of a sensory threshold by a contralateral stimulus. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1961, 8, 1–11.
6.
JonesE. G., & PowellT. P. S.The commisural connections of the somatic sensory cortex in the cat. Journal of Anatomy, 1968, 103, 433–455.
7.
KahanemanD.Method, findings and theory in studies of visual masking. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 404–425.
8.
LevineH. S.Ipsilateral and contralateral tactile masking in human observers. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Univer. of Iowa, 1971.
9.
SherrickC. E.Effect of double simultaneous stimulation of the skin. American Journal of Psychology, 1964, 77, 42–53.
10.
TeitlebaumH., SharplessS. J., & ByckR.Role of somatosensory cortex in inter-hemispheric transfer of tactual habits. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968, 66, 623–632.
11.
UttalW. R.Inhibitory interaction of responses to electrical stimuli in the fingers. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1960, 53, 47–51.
