This study investigated how museum visitors with very low or no vision perceived and processed tactile pictures and/or audio-descriptions of visual paintings. Two visual paintings were selected and a focus group was established (N = 8). Qualitative interview and observation data were collected. This study found two types of museum visitors: those who explored the tactile picture first and those who rather listened to the audio-description. When exploring each element in the tactile picture, they all started by exploring the element’s global (shape) outline and, when struggling to recognise it, turned to the audio-description. They preferred the audio-description to start describing where their fingers were. Tactile texture attracted their attention, sparked their curiosity, and enabled them to create a mental image of the tactile picture, but also confused them. They preferred the global (element shape) outline to be straightened out, so that curves become angular, and texture only for targeting certain elements.
ArgyropoulosV. S.KanariC. (2015). Re-imagining the museum through ‘touch’: Reflections of individuals with visual disability on their experience of museum-visiting in Greece. ALTER – European Journal of Disability Research, 9, 130–143.
BerláE. P. (1981). Tactile scanning and memory for a spatial display by blind students. The Journal of Special Education, 15, 341–350.
4.
BerláE. P.ButterfieldL. H. (1977). Tactile distinctive features analysis: Training blind students in shape recognition and in locating shapes on a map. The Journal of Special Education, 11, 335–346.
5.
BerláE. P.ButterfieldL. H.MurrM. J. (1976). Tactual reading of political maps by blind students: A videomatic behavioral analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 10, 265–276.
6.
BerláE. P.MurrM. J. (1975). The effects of noise on the location of point symbols and tracking a line on a tactile pseudomap. The Journal of Special Education, 9, 183–190.
7.
CandinF. (2003). Blindness, art and exclusion in museums and galleries. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 22, 100–110.
8.
CornoldiC.TintiC.MammarellaI. C.ReA. M.VarottoD. (2009). Memory for an imagined pathway and strategy effects in sighted and in totally congenitally blind individuals. Acta Psychologica, 130, 11–16.
9.
CrewdsonJ.ZangwillO. L. (1940). A note on tactual perception in a blind subject. British Journal of Psychology, 30, 224–229.
10.
CryerH.JonesC.GunnD. (2011). Producing braille on swell paper. A study of braille legibility (Research report #11). Birmingham, UK: RNIB Centre for Accessible Information.
11.
DandekarK.RajuB. I.SrinivasanM. A. (2003). 3-D finite-element models of human and monkey fingertips to investigate the mechanics of tactile sense. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 125, 682–691.
12.
DavidsonP. W. (1972). Haptic judgements of curvature by blind and sighted humans. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 43–55.
13.
EmsleyI.GravenT.BirdN.GriffithsS.SuessJ.ShawL. (2019). Please touch the art: Experiences in developing for the visually impaired. Journal of Open Research Software. 7, 4. doi:10.5334/jors.231
GiorgiA. P.GiorgiB. M. (2003). The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. In CamicP. M.RhodesJ. E.YardleyL. (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 243–273). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
16.
GordonI. E.MorisonV. (1982). The haptic perception of curvature. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 446–450.
17.
GravenT. (2003). Aspects of object recognition: When touch replaces vision as the dominant sense modality. Visual Impairment Research, 5, 101–112.
18.
GravenT. (2004). Recognising tactile representations of familiar objects: The influence of pre-cuing when touch replaces vision as the dominant sense modality. Visual Impairment Research, 6, 99–110.
19.
GravenT. (2005). Mental manipulation, thus recognition of familiar shapes: The influence of pre-cuing when touch replaces vision as the dominant sense modality. Visual Impairment Research, 7, 63–69.
20.
GravenT. (2009). Seeing through touch: When touch replaces vision as the dominant sense modality. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller AG.
21.
GravenT. (2015). How blind individuals discriminate braille characters: An identification and comparison of three discrimination strategies. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 33, 80–95.
22.
GravenT. (2016a). How attention is allocated when using haptic touch: Shape feature distinction and discrimination strategy. In BelloF.KajimotoH.VisellY. (Eds.), EuroHaptics 2016, Part 1. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 9774, pp. 380–393). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
23.
GravenT. (2016b). When the discrimination strategy fails: Revisiting the figure Identity strategy, the global characteristics strategy, and the touch vision strategy. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 34, 121–129.
24.
GravenT. (2018). How individuals who are blind locate targets. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 36, 57–74.
25.
GravenT.DesebrockC. (2018). Bouba or kiki with and without vision: Shape-audio regularities and mental images. Acta Psychologica, 188, 200–212.
26.
HackiT. (1996). Comparative speaking, shouting and singing voice range profile measurement: Physiological and pathological aspects. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 21, 123–129.
27.
HayhoeS. (2013). The philosophical, political and religious roots of touch exhibitions in 20th century British museums. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(3). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3760/3273
28.
HellerM. A. (1989). Picture and pattern perception in the sighted and the blind: The advantage of the late blind. Perception, 18, 379–389.
29.
HellerM. A.GentazE. (2014). Psychology of touch and blindness. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
30.
HellerM. A.KennedyJ. M.JoynerT. D. (1995). Production and interpretation of pictures of houses by blind people. Perception, 24, 1049–1058.
31.
HellerM. A.McCarthyM.ClarkA. (2005). Pattern perception and pictures for the blind. Psicológica, 26, 161–171.
32.
HetheringtonK. (2000). Museums and the visually impaired: The spatial politics of access. Sociological Review, 48, 444–463.
33.
HolmesE.HughesB.JanssonG. (1998). Haptic perception of texture gradients. Perception, 27, 993–1008.
34.
HöttingK.RöderB. (2009). Auditory and auditory-tactile processing in congenitally blind humans. Hearing Research, 258, 165–174.
35.
HullJ. M. (1991). Touching the rock: An experience of blindness. London, England: Arrow Books.
36.
HunterI. M. L. (1954). Tactile-kinaesthetic perception of straightness in blind and sighted humans. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 149–154.
37.
JehoelS.McCallumD.RowellJ.UngarS. (2006). An empirical approach on the design of tactile maps and diagrams: The cognitive tactualization approach. The British Journal of Visual Impairment, 24, 67–75.
38.
KatzD. (1989). The world of touch [Der Aufbau der Tastwelt]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
KennedyJ. M. (2019). In vision and touch, pictures trigger equations for surfaces and edges. In RavenscroftJ. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of visual impairment (pp. 238–254). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
40.
KennedyJ. M.BaiJ. (2002). Haptic pictures: Fit judgements predict identification, recognition memory, and confidence. Perception, 31, 1013–1026.
41.
KlatzkyR. L.LedermanS. J. (1987). The intelligent hand. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 121–149). New York, NY: Academic Press.
42.
KosslynS. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. London, England: MIT Press.
LandridgeD. (2007). Phenomenological psychology: Theory, research and practice. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
45.
LavieN. (1995). Perceptual load is a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451–468.
46.
LavieN.LinZ.ZokaeiN.TomaV. (2009). The role of perceptual load in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1346–1358.
47.
LedermanS. J.KlatzkyR. L. (1997). Relative availability of surface and object properties during early haptic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Perception and Performance, 23, 1680–1707.
48.
LeventN.KleegeG.PursleyJ. M. (2013). Guest editors’ introduction: Museum experience and blindness. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(3). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3751/3252
49.
LeventN.PursleyJ. M. (2013). Sustainable museum access: A two-way street. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(3). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3742/3274
MesquitaS.CarneiroM. J. (2016). Accessibility of European museums to visitors with visual impairments. Disability & Society, 31, 373–388.
52.
MillarS. (1977). Early stages of tactual matching. Perception, 6, 333–336.
53.
MillarS. (1984). Strategy choices by young Braille readers. Perception, 13, 567–579.
54.
MillarS. (1985). The perception of complex patterns by touch. Perception, 14, 293–303.
55.
MillarS. (1987a). Perceptual and task factors in fluent Braille. Perception, 16, 521–536.
56.
MillarS. (1987b). The perceptual ‘window’ in two-handed Braille: Do the left and right hands process text simultaneously?Cortex, 23, 111–122.
57.
MillarS. (1994). Understanding and representing space: Theory and evidence from studies with blind and sighted children. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
58.
MillarS. (1997). Reading by touch. London, England: Routledge.
59.
MillarS. (2008). Space and sense. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
60.
MillarS.Al-AttarZ. (2003). How do people remember spatial information from tactile maps?British Journal of Visual Impairment, 21, 64–72.
61.
MillarS.Al-AttarZ. (2004). External and body-centered frames of reference in spatial memory: Evidence from touch. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 51–59.
62.
NolanC. Y.KederisC. J. (1969). Perceptual factors in Braille word recognition (American Foundation for the Blind, Research Series No. 20). New York, NY: American Foundation for the Blind.
63.
NolanC. Y.MorrisJ. E. (1971). Improvement of tactual symbols for blind children (Final Report). Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.
64.
PackerJ.BallantyneR. (2016). Conceptualizing the visitor experience: A review of literature and development of a multifaceted model. Visitor Studies, 19, 128–143.
PicardD.LebazS. (2012). Identifying raised-lined drawings by touch: A hard but not impossible task. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 106, 427–431.
67.
PlaisierM. A.Bergmann TiestW. M.KappersA. M. L. (2008). Haptic pop-out in a hand sweep. Acta Psychologica, 128, 368–377.
68.
PlaisierM. A.Bergmann TiestW. M.KappersA. M. L. (2009). Salient features in 3-D haptic shape perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 421–430.
69.
PlaisierM. A.KappersA. M. L. (2010). Could objects pop out! In KappersA. M. L.van ErpJ. B. F.Bergmann TiestW. M.van der HelmF. C. T. (Eds.), EuroHaptics 2010, Part II. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6192, pp. 219–224). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
70.
PostmaA.ZuidhoekS.NoordzijM. L.KappersA. M. L. (2007). Differences between early-blind, late-blind, and blindfolded-sighted people in haptic spatial-configuration learning and resulting memory traces. Perception, 36, 1253–1265.
71.
PringL. (1989). Getting in touch with pictures and words: Educational strategies for the blind. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 12, 57–65.
RowellJ.UngarS. (2003). The world of touch: An international survey of tactile maps. Part 2: Design. The British Journal of Visual Impairment, 21, 105–110.
SpenceC.DeroyO. (2013). How automatic are crossmodal correspondences?Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 245–260.
77.
TompsonL. J.CronicleE. P. (2006). Beyond visual conventions: Rethinking the design of tactile diagrams. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 24, 76–82.
78.
TompsonL. J.CronicleE. P.CollinsA. F. (2003). The role of pictorial convention in haptic picture perception. Perception, 32, 887–893.
UngarS.BladesM.SpencerC. (1995). Mental rotation of a tactile layout by young visually Impaired children. Perception, 24, 891–900.
81.
van PolanenV.Bergmann TiestW. M.KappersA. M. L. (2012). Haptic pop-out of movable stimuli. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 204–215.
82.
VoisinJ.BenoitG.ChapmanC. E. (2002). Haptic discrimination of object shape in humans: Two-dimensional angle discrimination. Experimental Brain Research, 145, 239–250.
83.
WapnerJ. (2013). Mission and low vision: A visually impaired museologist’s perspective on inclusivity. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(3). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3756/3290
84.
WarrenD. H. (1994). Blindness and children: An individual differences approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
85.
WatanabeT.OouchiS. (2003). A study of legible braille patterns on capsule paper: Diameters of braille dots and their interspaces on original ink-printed paper. The Bulletin of the National Institute of Special Education, 30, 1–8.
WijntjesM. W. A.KappersA. M. L. (2007). Angle discrimination in raised-line drawings. Perception, 36, 865–879.
88.
WolfeJ.RobertsonL. (2012). From perception to consciousness: Searching with Anne Treisman. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
