Pub Date : 2018-12-13DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0005
Paul Noordhof
I defend a refined characterization of sensory substitution that allows for its existence while denying that the substituting sense plus sensory substitution device is always appropriately classified as the substituted sense. Accepting that there are genuine cases of sensory substitution of this kind implies that acclimatization to a sensory substitution device may provide presentations of properties. Externalist accounts of experience together with objectivist characterizations of such properties have the upshot that properties putatively proprietary to a sense modality can be presented in another modality in cases of substitution. I consider three objections to this argument. I close by explaining how reflection on the phenomena of sensory substitution and, in particular, acclimatization is important for the development of any kind of representationalist or relationist theory of phenomenal properties or, at the very least, suggests we need to refine the idea of certain properties—rather than particular ways in which their presentation is bundled together—being proprietary to the particular senses.
{"title":"Sensory Substitution and the Challenge of Acclimatization","authors":"Paul Noordhof","doi":"10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"I defend a refined characterization of sensory substitution that allows for its existence while denying that the substituting sense plus sensory substitution device is always appropriately classified as the substituted sense. Accepting that there are genuine cases of sensory substitution of this kind implies that acclimatization to a sensory substitution device may provide presentations of properties. Externalist accounts of experience together with objectivist characterizations of such properties have the upshot that properties putatively proprietary to a sense modality can be presented in another modality in cases of substitution. I consider three objections to this argument. I close by explaining how reflection on the phenomena of sensory substitution and, in particular, acclimatization is important for the development of any kind of representationalist or relationist theory of phenomenal properties or, at the very least, suggests we need to refine the idea of certain properties—rather than particular ways in which their presentation is bundled together—being proprietary to the particular senses.","PeriodicalId":415104,"journal":{"name":"Sensory Substitution and Augmentation","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133087674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-13DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0016
David Suarez, Diana Acosta-Navas, Umut Baysan, Kevin Connolly
One limitation of sensory substitution devices (SSDs) is their inability to reproduce the non-sensory feelings that are normally associated with visual experiences, especially hedonic responses. This is sometimes reported to cause SSD users frustration and it is unclear that improvements in acuity, bandwidth, or training will resolve the issue. We offer a novel solution. Researchers can produce hedonic responses by eliciting these feelings artificially, pairing distal objects that should be pleasurable to pleasurable outputs from the SSD. We outline two strategies for accomplishing this: first, by means of a prefixed, hardwired association of distal objects to SSD outputs; and second, by means of a flexible, feedback-based association created by subject-directed matching of distal objects to SSD outputs. We evaluate both strategies, and argue that the feedback-based strategy is more promising. Researchers could use this strategy to help the blind, allowing them to take pleasure in objects they perceive using SSDs.
{"title":"Sensory Substitution and Non-Sensory Feelings","authors":"David Suarez, Diana Acosta-Navas, Umut Baysan, Kevin Connolly","doi":"10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0016","url":null,"abstract":"One limitation of sensory substitution devices (SSDs) is their inability to reproduce the non-sensory feelings that are normally associated with visual experiences, especially hedonic responses. This is sometimes reported to cause SSD users frustration and it is unclear that improvements in acuity, bandwidth, or training will resolve the issue. We offer a novel solution. Researchers can produce hedonic responses by eliciting these feelings artificially, pairing distal objects that should be pleasurable to pleasurable outputs from the SSD. We outline two strategies for accomplishing this: first, by means of a prefixed, hardwired association of distal objects to SSD outputs; and second, by means of a flexible, feedback-based association created by subject-directed matching of distal objects to SSD outputs. We evaluate both strategies, and argue that the feedback-based strategy is more promising. Researchers could use this strategy to help the blind, allowing them to take pleasure in objects they perceive using SSDs.","PeriodicalId":415104,"journal":{"name":"Sensory Substitution and Augmentation","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130119124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-13DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0014
K. Connolly
When a user integrates a sensory substitution device into her life, the process involves perceptual learning, that is, ‘relatively long-lasting changes to an organism’s perceptual system that improve its ability to respond to its environment’. In this chapter, I explore ways in which the extensive literature on perceptual learning can be applied to help improve sensory substitution devices. I then use these findings to answer a philosophical question. Much of the philosophical debate surrounding sensory substitution devices concerns what happens after perceptual learning occurs. In particular, should the resultant perceptual experience be classified in the substituted modality (as vision), in the substituting modality (as auditory or tactile), or in a new sense modality? I propose a novel empirical test to help resolve this philosophical debate.
{"title":"Sensory Substitution and Perceptual Learning","authors":"K. Connolly","doi":"10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0014","url":null,"abstract":"When a user integrates a sensory substitution device into her life, the process involves perceptual learning, that is, ‘relatively long-lasting changes to an organism’s perceptual system that improve its ability to respond to its environment’. In this chapter, I explore ways in which the extensive literature on perceptual learning can be applied to help improve sensory substitution devices. I then use these findings to answer a philosophical question. Much of the philosophical debate surrounding sensory substitution devices concerns what happens after perceptual learning occurs. In particular, should the resultant perceptual experience be classified in the substituted modality (as vision), in the substituting modality (as auditory or tactile), or in a new sense modality? I propose a novel empirical test to help resolve this philosophical debate.","PeriodicalId":415104,"journal":{"name":"Sensory Substitution and Augmentation","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134089276","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-13DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0002
L. Renier
Sensory substitution refers to the use of one sensory modality (e.g. hearing) to supply environmental information normally gathered by another sense (e.g. vision) while still preserving some of the key functions of the original sense. For example, the use of auditory signals might give information about visual scenes. The development of sensory substitution devices has profoundly changed the classical definition of sensory modalities and contributed to the emergence of a new form of perception. In the last decade, our knowledge about cognitive and brain mechanisms involved in sensory substitution has grown considerably, bringing new insights into human perception. The phenomenological experience of perceiving via a sensory substitution device can now be discussed in the light of current scientific knowledge. Thanks to technological advances and scientific achievements, sensory substitution has become a real alternative for restoring some functions of a defective sensory organ (e.g. sight in the case of blindness or hearing in the case of deafness). This essay addresses some of the major questions raised by sensory substitution, including discussions regarding the nature of perception arising from the use of such devices, demonstrates how the study of sensory substitution enhances our understanding of human perception and brain plasticity and provides a short overview of rehabilitation potentialities.
{"title":"Sensory Substitution: From Sensations to Phenomenology","authors":"L. Renier","doi":"10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"Sensory substitution refers to the use of one sensory modality (e.g. hearing) to supply environmental information normally gathered by another sense (e.g. vision) while still preserving some of the key functions of the original sense. For example, the use of auditory signals might give information about visual scenes. The development of sensory substitution devices has profoundly changed the classical definition of sensory modalities and contributed to the emergence of a new form of perception. In the last decade, our knowledge about cognitive and brain mechanisms involved in sensory substitution has grown considerably, bringing new insights into human perception. The phenomenological experience of perceiving via a sensory substitution device can now be discussed in the light of current scientific knowledge. Thanks to technological advances and scientific achievements, sensory substitution has become a real alternative for restoring some functions of a defective sensory organ (e.g. sight in the case of blindness or hearing in the case of deafness). This essay addresses some of the major questions raised by sensory substitution, including discussions regarding the nature of perception arising from the use of such devices, demonstrates how the study of sensory substitution enhances our understanding of human perception and brain plasticity and provides a short overview of rehabilitation potentialities.","PeriodicalId":415104,"journal":{"name":"Sensory Substitution and Augmentation","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125265826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-13DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0001
F. Macpherson
In this essay I outline the main questions and the debates about sensory substitution and augmentation devices. I describe the two most studied modern sensory substitution devices (TVSS and the vOICe) and one sensory augmentation device (the feelSpace belt). I discuss whether use of these devices gives rise to new sensory experiences of objects or just new perceptual judgements about objects. Then, on the assumption that new sensory experiences are being had, I consider what sensory modality is operative—the substituted or the substituting one, or another altogether. I examine the evidence concerning whether the experiences had in sensory substitution are of a two- or a three-dimensional world, and about the nature of those experiences with respect to whether colour is represented in them. I consider whether there are any limits to what information or what experiences can be given via sensory substitution. And I discuss whether the results from sensory substitution experiments can be used to support certain theories of perception at the expense of rivals. Furthermore, the practical use of sensory substitution and augmentation devices is considered. Finally, I provide a brief overview of the rest of the essays that this volume contains and the host of further interesting issues that the authors consider and address.
{"title":"Sensory Substitution and Augmentation: An Introduction","authors":"F. Macpherson","doi":"10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"In this essay I outline the main questions and the debates about sensory substitution and augmentation devices. I describe the two most studied modern sensory substitution devices (TVSS and the vOICe) and one sensory augmentation device (the feelSpace belt). I discuss whether use of these devices gives rise to new sensory experiences of objects or just new perceptual judgements about objects. Then, on the assumption that new sensory experiences are being had, I consider what sensory modality is operative—the substituted or the substituting one, or another altogether. I examine the evidence concerning whether the experiences had in sensory substitution are of a two- or a three-dimensional world, and about the nature of those experiences with respect to whether colour is represented in them. I consider whether there are any limits to what information or what experiences can be given via sensory substitution. And I discuss whether the results from sensory substitution experiments can be used to support certain theories of perception at the expense of rivals. Furthermore, the practical use of sensory substitution and augmentation devices is considered. Finally, I provide a brief overview of the rest of the essays that this volume contains and the host of further interesting issues that the authors consider and address.","PeriodicalId":415104,"journal":{"name":"Sensory Substitution and Augmentation","volume":"110 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126632709","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-01DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0007
Derek H. Brown
Sensory substitution devices (SSDs) are most familiar from their use with subjects who are deficient in a target modality (e.g. congenitally blind subjects), but there is no doubt that the use and potential value of SSDs extend to persons without such deficits. Recent work by Amedi and his team (in particular Levy-Tzedek et al. 2012) has begun to explore this. Their idea is that SSDs may facilitate behavioural transference (BT) across sense modalities. In this case, a motor skill learned through visual perception might be subsequently employed in response to auditory perception, using an SSD as a mediator. They infer from the existence of such BT that the learned skill is amodally represented. After a brief overview I identify ways to more fully test for BT within this experimental paradigm and argue that their conclusion about amodal representation is premature. Additionally, I argue that their preferred SSD (Eyemusic) is of limited value for the project. While my remarks are critical, my intention is to be constructive, particularly in light of the fact that Levy-Tzedek et al. (2012) is, I believe, the first output from Amedi’s lab concerning this line of research.
感官替代装置(SSDs)最熟悉的用途是用于缺乏目标形态的受试者(例如先天失明的受试者)，但毫无疑问，SSDs的使用和潜在价值也可以扩展到没有这种缺陷的人。Amedi和他的团队最近的工作(特别是Levy-Tzedek et al. 2012)已经开始探索这一点。他们的想法是，固态硬盘可能会促进跨感官模式的行为转移(BT)。在这种情况下，通过视觉感知学习的运动技能可能随后被用于对听觉感知的反应，使用SSD作为中介。他们从这种BT的存在中推断，所学技能是模态表征的。在简要概述之后，我确定了在这个实验范式中更全面地测试BT的方法，并认为他们关于模态表征的结论还为时过早。此外，我认为他们首选的SSD (Eyemusic)对项目的价值有限。虽然我的评论是批判性的，但我的意图是建设性的，特别是考虑到Levy-Tzedek等人(2012)是Amedi实验室关于这一研究领域的第一个成果，我相信。
{"title":"Sensory Substitution Devices and Behavioural Transference: A Commentary on Recent Work from the Lab of Amir Amedi","authors":"Derek H. Brown","doi":"10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"Sensory substitution devices (SSDs) are most familiar from their use with subjects who are deficient in a target modality (e.g. congenitally blind subjects), but there is no doubt that the use and potential value of SSDs extend to persons without such deficits. Recent work by Amedi and his team (in particular Levy-Tzedek et al. 2012) has begun to explore this. Their idea is that SSDs may facilitate behavioural transference (BT) across sense modalities. In this case, a motor skill learned through visual perception might be subsequently employed in response to auditory perception, using an SSD as a mediator. They infer from the existence of such BT that the learned skill is amodally represented. After a brief overview I identify ways to more fully test for BT within this experimental paradigm and argue that their conclusion about amodal representation is premature. Additionally, I argue that their preferred SSD (Eyemusic) is of limited value for the project. While my remarks are critical, my intention is to be constructive, particularly in light of the fact that Levy-Tzedek et al. (2012) is, I believe, the first output from Amedi’s lab concerning this line of research.","PeriodicalId":415104,"journal":{"name":"Sensory Substitution and Augmentation","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122079578","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-01DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0004
Jennifer Corns
Deroy and Auvray together with Ptito et al. have argued against what they dub ‘the perceptual assumption’, which they claim underlies all previous research into sensory substitution devices (SSDs). In this chapter, I argue that the perceptual assumption needs to be disambiguated in three distinct ways: (A) SSD use is best modelled as a known, ‘natural’ modality; (B) SSD use is best modelled as a unique sensory modality full stop; and (C) SSD use is best modelled as a perceptual process. Different theorists are variously committed to these distinct claims. More importantly, evaluating A, B, or C for rejection depends on distinct evidence of difference between SSD use and (A) each natural modality, (B) any modality, and (C) perceptual processing. I argue that even if the offered evidence of difference for A–C is granted, Auvray and Deroy’s advocated rejections are not entailed; it remains to be shown that the identified differences undermine the appropriate use of the corresponding models.
{"title":"Disambiguating the Perceptual Assumption","authors":"Jennifer Corns","doi":"10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197266441.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"Deroy and Auvray together with Ptito et al. have argued against what they dub ‘the perceptual assumption’, which they claim underlies all previous research into sensory substitution devices (SSDs). In this chapter, I argue that the perceptual assumption needs to be disambiguated in three distinct ways: (A) SSD use is best modelled as a known, ‘natural’ modality; (B) SSD use is best modelled as a unique sensory modality full stop; and (C) SSD use is best modelled as a perceptual process. Different theorists are variously committed to these distinct claims. More importantly, evaluating A, B, or C for rejection depends on distinct evidence of difference between SSD use and (A) each natural modality, (B) any modality, and (C) perceptual processing. I argue that even if the offered evidence of difference for A–C is granted, Auvray and Deroy’s advocated rejections are not entailed; it remains to be shown that the identified differences undermine the appropriate use of the corresponding models.","PeriodicalId":415104,"journal":{"name":"Sensory Substitution and Augmentation","volume":"137 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131928997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：