Villalonga MB, Sekuler R. Keep your finger on the pulse: Better
rate perception and gap detection with vibrotactile compared to visual stimuli.
Atten Percept Psychophys 2023;
85:2004-2017. [PMID:
37587355 PMCID:
PMC10545646 DOI:
10.3758/s13414-023-02736-y]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/16/2023] [Indexed: 08/18/2023]
Abstract
Important characteristics of the environment can be represented in the temporal pattern of sensory stimulation. In two experiments, we compared accuracy of temporal processing by different modalities. Experiment 1 examined binary categorization of rate for visual (V) or vibrotactile (T) stimulus pulses presented at either 4 or 6 Hz. Inter-pulse intervals were either constant or variable, perturbed by random Gaussian variates. Subjects categorized the rate of T pulse sequences more accurately than V sequences. In V conditions only, subjects disproportionately tended to mis-categorize 4-Hz pulse rates, for all but the most variable sequences. In Experiment 2, we compared gap detection thresholds across modalities, using the same V and T pulses from Experiment 1, as well as with bimodal (VT) pulses. Visual gap detection thresholds were larger (3[Formula: see text]) than tactile thresholds. Additionally, performance with VT stimuli seemed to be nearly completely dominated by their T components. Together, these results suggest (i) that vibrotactile temporal acuity surpasses visual temporal acuity, and (ii) that vibrotactile stimulation has considerable, untapped potential to convey temporal information like that needed for eyes-free alerting signals.
Collapse