静止的触觉刺激在大多数个体中不会产生眼部调节。

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 BIOPHYSICS Multisensory Research Pub Date : 2023-11-28 DOI:10.1163/22134808-bja10115
Lawrence R Stark, Kim Shiraishi, Tyler Sommerfeld
{"title":"静止的触觉刺激在大多数个体中不会产生眼部调节。","authors":"Lawrence R Stark, Kim Shiraishi, Tyler Sommerfeld","doi":"10.1163/22134808-bja10115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to determine the extent to which haptic stimuli can influence ocular accommodation, either alone or in combination with vision. Accommodation was measured objectively in 15 young adults as they read stationary targets containing Braille letters. These cards were presented at four distances in the range 20-50 cm. In the Touch condition, the participant read by touch with their dominant hand in a dark room. Afterward, they estimated card distance with their non-dominant hand. In the Vision condition, they read by sight binocularly without touch in a lighted room. In the Touch with Vision condition, they read by sight binocularly and with touch in a lighted room. Sensory modality had a significant overall effect on the slope of the accommodative stimulus-response function. The slope in the Touch condition was not significantly different from zero, even though depth perception from touch was accurate. Nevertheless, one atypical participant had a moderate accommodative slope in the Touch condition. The accommodative slope in the Touch condition was significantly poorer than in the Vision condition. The accommodative slopes in the Vision condition and Touch with Vision condition were not significantly different. For most individuals, haptic stimuli for stationary objects do not influence the accommodation response, alone or in combination with vision. These haptic stimuli provide accurate distance perception, thus questioning the general validity of Heath's model of proximal accommodation as driven by perceived distance. Instead, proximally induced accommodation relies on visual rather than touch stimuli.</p>","PeriodicalId":51298,"journal":{"name":"Multisensory Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stationary Haptic Stimuli Do not Produce Ocular Accommodation in Most Individuals.\",\"authors\":\"Lawrence R Stark, Kim Shiraishi, Tyler Sommerfeld\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/22134808-bja10115\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to determine the extent to which haptic stimuli can influence ocular accommodation, either alone or in combination with vision. Accommodation was measured objectively in 15 young adults as they read stationary targets containing Braille letters. These cards were presented at four distances in the range 20-50 cm. In the Touch condition, the participant read by touch with their dominant hand in a dark room. Afterward, they estimated card distance with their non-dominant hand. In the Vision condition, they read by sight binocularly without touch in a lighted room. In the Touch with Vision condition, they read by sight binocularly and with touch in a lighted room. Sensory modality had a significant overall effect on the slope of the accommodative stimulus-response function. The slope in the Touch condition was not significantly different from zero, even though depth perception from touch was accurate. Nevertheless, one atypical participant had a moderate accommodative slope in the Touch condition. The accommodative slope in the Touch condition was significantly poorer than in the Vision condition. The accommodative slopes in the Vision condition and Touch with Vision condition were not significantly different. For most individuals, haptic stimuli for stationary objects do not influence the accommodation response, alone or in combination with vision. These haptic stimuli provide accurate distance perception, thus questioning the general validity of Heath's model of proximal accommodation as driven by perceived distance. Instead, proximally induced accommodation relies on visual rather than touch stimuli.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Multisensory Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Multisensory Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-bja10115\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multisensory Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-bja10115","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在确定触觉刺激对视觉调节的影响程度,无论是单独的还是与视觉结合的。在15名年轻人阅读包含盲文字母的固定目标时,客观地测量了他们的适应能力。这些卡片在20-50厘米的范围内以四种距离呈现。在触摸条件下,参与者在黑暗的房间里用惯用手触摸阅读。之后,他们用非惯用手估算出出牌的距离。在视觉条件下,他们在一个有灯光的房间里用双眼阅读,不需要触摸。在触觉与视觉的条件下,他们在一个有灯光的房间里用双眼和触觉阅读。感觉模态对调节刺激反应函数的斜率有显著的总体影响。尽管触觉深度感知是准确的,但触觉条件下的斜率与零没有显著差异。然而,一个非典型参与者在Touch条件下有中等调节斜率。触觉条件下的调节斜率明显低于视觉条件下的调节斜率。视觉条件和触觉条件下的调节斜率无显著差异。对于大多数人来说,对静止物体的触觉刺激,单独或与视觉结合,都不会影响调节反应。这些触觉刺激提供了准确的距离感知,从而质疑了Heath的近端调节模型由感知距离驱动的总体有效性。相反,近端诱导调节依赖于视觉刺激而不是触觉刺激。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Stationary Haptic Stimuli Do not Produce Ocular Accommodation in Most Individuals.

This study aimed to determine the extent to which haptic stimuli can influence ocular accommodation, either alone or in combination with vision. Accommodation was measured objectively in 15 young adults as they read stationary targets containing Braille letters. These cards were presented at four distances in the range 20-50 cm. In the Touch condition, the participant read by touch with their dominant hand in a dark room. Afterward, they estimated card distance with their non-dominant hand. In the Vision condition, they read by sight binocularly without touch in a lighted room. In the Touch with Vision condition, they read by sight binocularly and with touch in a lighted room. Sensory modality had a significant overall effect on the slope of the accommodative stimulus-response function. The slope in the Touch condition was not significantly different from zero, even though depth perception from touch was accurate. Nevertheless, one atypical participant had a moderate accommodative slope in the Touch condition. The accommodative slope in the Touch condition was significantly poorer than in the Vision condition. The accommodative slopes in the Vision condition and Touch with Vision condition were not significantly different. For most individuals, haptic stimuli for stationary objects do not influence the accommodation response, alone or in combination with vision. These haptic stimuli provide accurate distance perception, thus questioning the general validity of Heath's model of proximal accommodation as driven by perceived distance. Instead, proximally induced accommodation relies on visual rather than touch stimuli.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Multisensory Research
Multisensory Research BIOPHYSICS-PSYCHOLOGY
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Multisensory Research is an interdisciplinary archival journal covering all aspects of multisensory processing including the control of action, cognition and attention. Research using any approach to increase our understanding of multisensory perceptual, behavioural, neural and computational mechanisms is encouraged. Empirical, neurophysiological, psychophysical, brain imaging, clinical, developmental, mathematical and computational analyses are welcome. Research will also be considered covering multisensory applications such as sensory substitution, crossmodal methods for delivering sensory information or multisensory approaches to robotics and engineering. Short communications and technical notes that draw attention to new developments will be included, as will reviews and commentaries on current issues. Special issues dealing with specific topics will be announced from time to time. Multisensory Research is a continuation of Seeing and Perceiving, and of Spatial Vision.
期刊最新文献
Multisensory Integration of Native and Nonnative Speech in Bilingual and Monolingual Adults. The Impact of Viewing Distance and Proprioceptive Manipulations on a Virtual Reality Based Balance Test. What is the Relation between Chemosensory Perception and Chemosensory Mental Imagery? Evidence for a Causal Dissociation of the McGurk Effect and Congruent Audiovisual Speech Perception via TMS to the Left pSTS. Audiovisual Speech Perception Benefits are Stable from Preschool through Adolescence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1