Comparison of Perimeters: Intuitive Interference in People who Are Blind

Abstract

Introduction

Difficulties in science and mathematics may stem from intuitive interference of irrelevant salient variables in a task. It has been suggested that such intuitive interference is based on immediate perceptual differences that are often visual. Studies performed with sighted participants have indicated that in the comparison-of-“perimeters” task, “area” was the irrelevant salient variable. Such studies have consistently shown that accuracy is higher and reaction times for correct responses are shorter in congruent trials (no interference of area), than in incongruent trials (interference of area).

Methods

Fifteen participants who are blind completed a comparison-of-area and a comparison-of-perimeters tasks, each in a different session. In each comparison trial, the participants explored two tactile geometrical shapes using both hands. To collect the participants’ responses and reaction times, the researchers used a Microsoft Excel Macro file designed for this study.

Results

Findings demonstrated that for both rate of correct responses and their reaction times, the performance pattern resembled the one observed previously for sighted participants. In addition, reaction times that were observed there were about five times longer compared to those observed previously for sighted participants.

Discussion

These findings indicated that interference of area in comparison to perimeters is evident for participants who are blind. They further suggest that, in mathematics, people who are blind experience interference that had previously been assumed to be tied to visual perception.

Implications for practitioners

The study suggests that interference of salient irrelevant variables could cause difficulties in science and mathematics for students who are blind. This knowledge could guide educators and curriculum developers for these students in selecting appropriate learning and instruction methods. In addition, the current findings point to the additional amount of time needed to access graphical information tactilely compared to visually.