Visual experience improved performances of blind adults in mental rotation and mental representation of the path of a spot. Congenitally blind participants with high expertise in graphic material performed better than two categories of nonexpert participants—those who became blind early in their lives versus those who became blind later in their lives—indicating that graphic expertise may compensate for the lack of visual representations. Implications for teaching are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArditiA., HoltzmanJ. D., & KosslynS. M. (1988). Mental imagery and sensory experience in congenital blindness. Neuropsychologia, 26, 1–12.
2.
CarpenterP. A., & EisenbergP. (1978). Mental rotation and the frame of reference in blind and sighted individuals. Perception and Psychophysics, 23, 117–124.
3.
CornoldiC., CortesiA., & PretiD. (1991). Individual differences in the capacity limitations of visuo-spatial short-term memory: Research on sighted and totally congenitally blind people. Memory and Cognition, 19, 459–468.
4.
CornoldiC., & VecchiT. (2000). Mental imagery in blind people: The role of passive and active visuo-spatial processes. In HellerM. (Ed.), Touch, representation and blindness (pp. 143–181). New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
CornoldiC., & VecchiT. (2003). Congenital blindness and spatial mental imagery. In HatwellY., StreriA., & GentazE. (Eds.), Touching for knowing: Cognitive psychology of haptic manual perception (pp. 173–187). Philadelphia: John Benjamin.
6.
DoddsA., HowarthC., & CarterD. (1982). The mental maps of the blind: Role of previous visual experience. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 76, 5–12.
7.
GaunetF., & Thinus-BlancC. (1996). Early blind subject's spatial abilities and the loco-motor space: A study of exploratory strategies and reaction to change performance. Perception, 25, 967–981.
8.
HatwellY. (2003). Psychologie cognitive de la cécité précoce.Paris, France: Dunod Editeur.
9.
HatwellY., & Martinez-SarocchiF. (2003). The tactile reading of maps and drawings, and the access of blind people to works of art. In HatwellY., StreriA., & GentazE. (Eds.), Touching for knowing: Cognitive psychology of haptic manual perception (pp. 255–273). Philadelphia: John Benjamin.
10.
HellerM. A. (1989). Picture and pattern perception in the sighted and the blind: The advantage of the late blind. Perception, 18, 379–389.
11.
HellerM. A. (Ed.) (2000). Touch, representation and blindness.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press
12.
HellerM. A., CalcaterraJ. A., TylerL. A., & BursonL. L. (1996). Production and interpretation of perspective drawings by the blind and sighted people. Perception, 25, 321–334.
13.
KerrN. H. (1983). The role of vision in “visual imagery” experiments: Evidence from the congenitally blind. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 265–277.
14.
MarmorG. S., & ZabackL. A. (1976). Mental rotation by the blind: Does mental rotation depend on visual imagery?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 515–521.
15.
MillarS. (1975). Visual experience or translation rules? Drawing the human figure by blind and sighted children. Perception, 4, 363–371.
16.
MillarS. (1994). Understanding and representing space: Theory and evidence from studies with blind and sighted children.Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
17.
ReveszG. (1950). Psychology and art of the blind.London, England: Longmans Green.
18.
RöderB., & RöslerS. (1998). Visual input does not facilitate the scanning of spatial images. Journal of Mental Imagery, 22, 165–181.
19.
Thinus-BlancC., & GaunetF. (1997). Space representations in blindness: Vision as a spatial sense?Psychological Bulletin, 121, 20–42.
20.
VecchiT., TintiC., CornoldiC. (2004). Spatial memory and integration processes in congenital blindness. Nuroreport, 15, 2787–2790.
21.
WarrenD. H. (1994). Blindness and children: An individual differences approach.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
