Describes the results of an experiment which examined whether kinesthetic movement information in a short memory paradigm of visually impaired persons was superior to that of sighted individuals. It was expected that visually impaired subjects would have developed a more sophisticated and refined kinesthetic modality and thus would produce less absolute and variable error than that of the sighted subjects on a movement retention task. It was found that the visually impaired and sighted subjects were equally effective in using the kinesthetic system to retain distance and location cues but the visually impaired subjects were significantly more variable in movement reproduction than were sighted subjects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ. A., & DijkstraS. (1966). Short-term memory for motor responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 314–318.
2.
AnaterP.E. (1980). Effect of auditory interference on memory of haptic perceptions.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 74, 305–309.
3.
BowerT.G.R., BroughtonM., & MooreM.K. (1970). The coordination of visual and tactual input in infants.Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 51–53.
4.
CanonL.K. (1970). Intermodality inconsistency of input and directed attention as determinants of the nature of adaption.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 84, 141–147.
5.
CleavesW.T., & RoyalW.R. (1979). Spatial memory for configurations by congentially blind, late blind, and sighted adults.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 73, 13–19.
6.
DreverJ. (1955). Early learning and the perception of space.American Journal of Psychology, 68, 605–614.
7.
EastonR.D., & BentzenB.L. (1980). Perception of tactile route configurations by blind and sighted observers.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 75, 254–265.
8.
EwartA.G., & CarpF.M. (1963). Recognition of tactual form by sighted and blind subjects.American Journal of Psychology, 76, 488–491.
9.
FrithV., & HermelinB. (1969). The role of visual and motor cues for normal, subnormal and autistic children.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 10, 153–163.
10.
HayJ.C., PickH.L., & IkedaK. (1965). Visual capture produced by prism spectacles.Psychonomic Science, 2, 215–216.
11.
HermelinB., & O'ConnorN. (1975). Location and distance estimates by blind and sighted children.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2, 295–301.
12.
JordanT.C. (1972). Characteristics of visual and proprioceptive response times in the learning of a motor skill.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 536–543.
13.
KelsoJ.A.S., CookE., OlsonM.E., & EpsteinW. (1975). Allocation of attention and the locus of adaptation to displaced vision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 237–245.
14.
KleinR.M. (1974). The role of attention in the processing of visual and kinesthetic information, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon.
15.
KleinR.M., & PosnerM.I. (1974). Attention to visual and kinesthetic components of skills.Brain Research, 71, 401–411.
16.
KnottsJ.R., & MilesW.R. (1929). The maze-learning ability of blind compared with sighted children.Journal of Genetic Psychology, 36, 21–50.
17.
LaabsG. J. (1973). Retention characteristics of different reproduction cues in motor short-term memory.Journal of Experiental Psychology, 100, 168–177.
18.
LeeD.N., & AronsonE. (1974). Visual proprioceptive control of standing in human infants.Perception and Psychophysics, 15, 529–532.
19.
MacFarlandD.C. (1952). An exploratory study comparing the maze-learning ability of blind and sighted subjects.New Outlook for the Blind, 46, 259–263.
20.
MarteniukR.G. (1973). Retention characteristics of motor short-term memory cues, Journal of Motor Behavior, 5, 249–259.
21.
MillerE.A. (1972). Interaction of vision and touch in conflict and nonconflict form perception tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 114–123.
22.
PickH.L., WarrenD.H., & HayJ.C. (1969). Sensory conflict in judgments of spatial direction.Perception and Psychophysics, 6, 203–205.
23.
PlataJ. (1942). Sobre la relacion entre los conocimianlos sensotactiles del ciebo y los optico-tacliles del vidente.Psiotecnia, 3, 337–362.
24.
PosnerM.I., NissenM. J., & OgdenW.C. (1978). Attended and unattended processing modes: The role of set for spatial location. In PickH.L., & SaltzmanE. (Eds.), Modes of Perceiving and Processing Information (pp. 137–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
PosnerM.I., & SnyderC.R.R. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. In RabbittP.M.A., & DornicS. (Eds.), Attention and Performance V. (pp. 180–192). New York: Academic Press.
26.
RockI., & VictorJ. (1964). Vision and touch: An experimentally created conflict between the two senses.Science, 143, 594–596.
27.
WalkerJ.T. (1972). Natural visual capture in bilateral length comparisons.Perception and Psychophysics, 11, 247–251.
