Simple tactile route configurations were explored by blindfolded sighted subjects, congenitally blind subjects, and adventitiously blinded subjects. Subjects had to choose matching configurations from sets of alternatives. Configurations were constructed with single, narrow double, or wide double lines. Subject groups generally explored single line configurations faster than double line configurations. Single lines also appeared to enhance subjects’ ability to form accurate mental representations. Congenitally blind subjects took less time to explore and form representations of the spatial configurations, but memory for the configurations was comparable across all subject groups.
BentzenB. L.Orientation aids. In BlaschB., WelchR. (Eds.), Foundations of Orientation and Mobility.New York: American Foundation for the Blind, 1980.
3.
BentzenB. L., and PeckA.Some factors affecting traceability of lines for tactile graphic displays.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 1979, 73, 264–269.
4.
BerlaE. P., and ButterfieldL. H.Tactile political maps: Two experimental designs.Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 1977, 71, 262–264.
5.
BowerG. H.Imagery as a relational organizer in associative learning.Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 1970, 9, 529–533.
6.
CarpenterP. A., and EisenbergP.Mental rotation and the frame of reference in blind and sighted individuals.Perception & Psychophysics, 1978, 23, 117–124.
7.
CleavesW. T., and RoyalW. R.Spatial memory for configurations by congenitally blind, late blind, and sighted adults.Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 1979, 73, 13–19.
8.
DavidsonP. W.Haptic judgments of curvature by blind and sighted humans.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 93, 43–55.
9.
GillJ. M.Design, production and evaluation of tactual maps for the blind. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of WarwickCoventry, England, 1973.
10.
GillJ. M., and JamesG. A.A study on the discrimination of tactual point symbols.AFB Research Bulletin, 26, June 1973, 19–34.
11.
HeathW. R.Maps and graphics for the blind: Some aspects of the discriminability of textural surfaces for use in areal differentiation. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington). Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1958, No. 69-829.
12.
JamesG. A., and GillJ. M.Pilot study of the discriminability of tactile areal and line symbols for the blind.AFB Research Bulletin, No. 29, 1975, 23–31.
13.
JamesG. A., and SwainR.Learning bus routes using a tactile map.New Outlook for the Blind, 1975, 69, 212–217.
14.
KosslynS. M., and PomerantzJ. R.Imagery, propositions, and the form of internal representations.Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9, 52–76.
15.
LedermanS. J., and KinchD. H.Texture in tactual maps and graphics for the visually handicapped.Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 1979, 73, 217–227.
16.
LeonardJ. A., and NewmanR. C.Three types of “maps” for blind travel.Ergonomics, 1970, 13, 165–179.
17.
MarmorG. S., and ZabackL. A.Mental rotation by the blind: Does mental rotation depend on visual imagery?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1976, 2, 515–521.
18.
MorrisJ. E.Discriminability of tactual patterns. Unpublished master's thesis. University of LouisvilleKentucky, 1961.
19.
NeisserU., and KerrN.Spatial and mnemonic properties of visual images.Cognitive Psychology, 1973, 5, 138–150.
20.
NolanC. Y., and MorrisJ. E.Improvement of tactual symbols for blind children.Louisville, Ky.: American Printing House for the Blind, 1971.
21.
PaivioA.Imagery and verbal processes.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.
22.
PylyshynZ. W.What the mind's eye tells the mind's brain: A critique of mental imagery.Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 1–24.
23.
SchiffW.Research on raised line drawings.New Outlook for the Blind, 1965, 59, 134–137.
24.
WarrenD. H.Blindness and early childhood development.New York: American Foundation for the Blind, 1977.
25.
WoodworthR. S., and SchlosbergH.Experimental Psychology. (2nd ed.) New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1954.
