20 adults were required to make size judgments matching intraorally presented holes which ranged in size from 1/16 in. to 3/4 in. in diameter with comparator arrays presented visually and digitally. We found the preponderance of incorrect judgments of the size of intra-orally presented holes was in the direction of overestimation; and incorrect judgments were significantly greater for digital matching than for visual (p < .05).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnstisS. M.Apparent size of holes felt with the tongue. Nature, 1964, 203, 792–793.
2.
BosmaJ. F., (Ed.) Symposium on oral sensation and perception. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1967.
3.
BosmaJ. F., (Ed.) Second symposium on oral sensation and perception. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1970.
4.
DellowP. G.LundJ. P.BabcockK., & Van RosendaalG.The oral assessment of object size. J. speech hear. Res., 1970, 13, 526–536.
5.
JenkinsW. L.Somesthesis. In StevensS. S. (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology. New York: Wiley, 1951. Pp. 1172–1190.
6.
RingelR. L.Oral sensation and perception: a selective review. In Speech and the dentofacial complex: the state of the art. Washington D. C.: American Speech and Hearing Assn, 1970. (ASHA Reports No. 5)
7.
SiegelB. L.The role of the mouth in the search for the female phallus. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn, 1971, 19, 310–331.
8.
WilliamsW. N., & LaPointeL. L.Correlations between oral-form recognition and lingual touch sensitivity. Percept. mot. Skills, 1971, 32, 840–842.
9.
WilliamsW. N., & LaPointeL. L.Intra-oral recognition of geometric forms by normal subjects. Percept. mot. Skills, 1971, 32, 419–426.
