Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Several features of tactile stimuli modulate the perceived distance between touches. In particular, distances are perceived as farther apart when the time interval between them is longer, than when it is shorter. Such effects have been interpreted as a form of ‘psychological relativity’, analogous to Einstein's conception of a four-dimensional space–time. We investigated whether similar effects occur for stimulus features other than time, specifically stimulus intensity. We hypothesised that perceived distance would be increased when the two stimuli differed in intensity, since they would then be farther apart in a multi-dimensional feature space. Participants made verbal estimates of the perceived distance between two touches on their left hand. Intensity was manipulated such that both stimuli could be intense, both could be light, or one could be intense and the other light. We found no evidence for change in perceived tactile distance when stimuli intensity mis-matched. In contrast, there were clear effects of average stimulus intensity on perceived distance. Intense stimuli were judged as farther apart than light stimuli, and mixed stimuli were intermediate. These results are consistent with theories of general magnitude representation, which argue that multiple dimensions of magnitude are dependent on a shared underlying representation of domain-general magnitude.

Keywords

somatosensory spatial cognition body perception haptics/touch

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bates

Mächler

Bolker

B. M.

Walker

S. C.

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Brooks

V. B.

Rudomin

Slayman

C. L.

(1961). Peripheral receptive fields of neurons in the cat’s cerebral cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 24, 302–325. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1961.24.3.302

Calzolari

Azañón

Danvers

Vallar

Longo

M. R.

(2017). Adaptation aftereffects reveal that tactile distance is a basic somatosensory feature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 4555–4560. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1614979114

Canzoneri

Ubaldi

Rastelli

Finisguerra

Bassolino

Serino

(2013). Tool-use reshapes the boundaries of body and peripersonal space representations. Experimental Brain Research, 228, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3532-2

Cholewiak

R. W.

(1999). The perception of tactile distance: Influences of body site, space, and time. Perception, 28, 851–875. https://doi.org/10.1068/p2873

Cody

F. W. J.

Garside

R. A. D.

Lloyd

Poliakoff

(2008). Tactile spatial acuity varies with site and axis in the human upper limb. Neuroscience Letters, 433, 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2007.12.054

Cohen

Hansel

C. E. M.

Sylvester

J. D.

(1954). Interdependence of temporal and auditory judgments. Nature, 174, 642–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/174642a0

Cohen Kadosh

Henik

(2008). When brightness counts: The neuronal correlate of numerical-luminance interference. Cerebral Cortex, 18, 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm058

de Vignemont

Majid

Jola

Haggard

(2008). Segmenting the body into parts: Evidence from biases in tactile perception. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 500–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802000802

10.

Dormal

Seron

Pesenti

(2006). Numerosity-duration interference: A Stroop experiment. Acta Psychologica, 121, 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.06.003

11.

Einstein

(1920). Relativity: The special and the general theory (R. W. Lawson, Trans.). Methuen & Co.

12.

Engel

M. M.

Gadsby

Corcoran

A. W.

Keizer

Dijkerman

H. C.

Hohwy

(2022). Waiting longer, feeling fatter: Effects of response delay on tactile distance estimation and confidence in females with anorexia nervosa. Brain and Behavior, 12, e2422. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2422

13.

Fiori

Longo

M. R.

(2018). Tactile distance illusions reflect a coherent stretch of tactile space. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 1238–1243. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715123115

14.

Flach

Haggard

(2006). The cutaneous rabbit revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.717

15.

Geldard

F. A.

Sherrick

C. E.

(1972). The cutaneous “rabbit”: A perceptual illusion. Science, 178, 178–179. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4057.178

16.

Goldreich

(2007). A Bayesian perceptual model replicates the cutaneous rabbit and other tactile spatiotemporal illusions. PLoS One, 2, e333. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000333

17.

Green

B. G.

(1982). The perception of distance and location for dual tactile pressures. Perception and Psychophysics, 31, 315–323. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202654

18.

Helson

(1930). The tau effect - An example of psychological relativity. Science, 71, 536–537. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.71.1847.536

19.

Helson

King

S. M.

(1931). The tau effect: An example of psychological relativity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071164

20.

Hidaka

Tamè

Zafarana

Longo

M. R.

(2020). Anisotropy in tactile time perception. Cortex, 128, 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.03.011

21.

Keizer

Aldegonda

Smeets

Christiaan

van den Hout

Klugkist

Van Elburg

Postma

(2011). Tactile body image disturbance in anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry Research, 190, 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2011.04.031

22.

Keizer

Engel

(2022). Body representation in anorexia nervosa. In Alsmith

A. J. T.

Longo

M. R.

(Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Bodily Awareness (pp. 380–397). Routledge.

23.

Le Cornu Knight

Bremner

A. J.

Cowie

(2020). Does the language we use to segment the body, shape the way we perceive it? A study of tactile perceptual distortions. Cognition, 197, 104127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104127

24.

Le Cornu Knight

Longo

M. R.

Bremner

A. J.

(2014). Categorical perception of tactile distance. Cognition, 131, 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.01.005

25.

Longo

M. R.

Golubova

(2017). Mapping the internal geometry of tactile space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1815–1827. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000434

26.

Longo

M. R.

Haggard

(2011). Weber’s illusion and body shape: Anisotropy of tactile size perception on the hand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 720–726. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021921

27.

Longo

M. R.

Sadibolova

(2013). Seeing the body distorts tactile size perception. Cognition, 126, 475–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.11.013

28.

Lourenco

S. F.

Longo

M. R.

(2011). Origins and development of generalized magnitude representation. In Dehaene

Brannon

E. M.

(Eds.), Space, time and number in the brain: Searching for the foundations of mathematical thought (pp. 225–244). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385948-8.00015-3

29.

Miller

L. E.

Longo

M. R.

Saygin

A. P.

(2014). Tool morphology constrains the effects of tool use on body representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 2143–2153. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037777

30.

Miller

L. E.

Longo

M. R.

Saygin

A. P.

(2016). Mental body representations retain homuncular shape distortions: Evidence from Weber’s illusion. Consciousness and Cognition, 40, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.12.008

31.

Sadibolova

Tamè

Walsh

Longo

M. R.

(2018). Mind the gap: The effects of temporal and spatial separation in localisation of dual touches on the hand. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 55. https://doi.org/10.3389/FNHUM.2018.00055

32.

Shepard

R. N.

(1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237, 1317–1323. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3629243

33.

Suto

(1952). The effect of space on time estimation (S-effect) in tactual space. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 22, 189–201. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.22.189

34.

Tamè

Tucciarelli

Sadibolova

Sereno

M. I.

Longo

M. R.

(2021). Reconstructing neural representations of tactile space. NeuroImage, 229, 117730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117730

35.

Taylor-Clarke

Jacobsen

Haggard

(2004). Keeping the world a constant size: Object constancy in human touch. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 219–220. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1199

36.

Tzelgov

Meyer

Henik

(1992). Automatic and intentional processing of numerical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.1.166

37.

Walsh

(2003). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.002

38.

Weber

E. H.

(1834). De subtilitate tactus. In Ross

H. E.

Murray

D. J.

(Eds.), E. H. Weber on the tactile senses (pp. 21–128). Academic Press.

39.

Xuan

Zhang

Chen

(2007). Larger stimuli are judged to last longer. Journal of Vision, 7, 2. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.10.2.Introduction

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.

0.00 MB

0.37 MB

Stimulus intensity modulates perceived tactile distance

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material