Minds and Machines

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 309–330 | Cite as

Reciprocal Modelling of Active Perception of 2-D Forms in a Simple Tactile-Vision Substitution System

  • John Stewart
  • Olivier Gapenne


The strategies of action employed by a human subject in order to perceive simple 2-D forms on the basis of tactile sensory feedback have been modelled by an explicit computer algorithm. The modelling process has been constrained and informed by the capacity of human subjects both to consciously describe their own strategies, and to apply explicit strategies; thus, the strategies effectively employed by the human subject have been influenced by the modelling process itself. On this basis, good qualitative and semi-quantitative agreement has been achieved between the trajectories produced by a human subject, and the traces produced by a computer algorithm. The advantage of this “reciprocal modelling” option, besides facilitating agreement between the algorithm and the empirically observed trajectories, is that the theoretical model provides an explanation, and not just a description, of the active perception of the human subject.

active perception computer modelling sensory-motor invariants visual tactile sensory substitution 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bach-y-Rita, P. (1972), Brain Mechanisms in Sensory Substitution, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, R.A. (1987), Intelligence Without Representation, Boston: MIT Artificial Intelligence Report.Google Scholar
  3. Crowley, J.L. & Christensen H. I. (1995), Vision as Process. Basic Research on Computer Vision Systems, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Gapenne, O., Lenay, C., Stewart, J., Bériot, H. and Meidine, D. (2001), Prosthetic Device and 2D Form Perception: The Role of Increasing Degrees of Parallelism; in Proceedings of the Conference on Assistive Technology for Vision and Hearing Impairement (CVHI'2001), Castelvecchio Pascoli, Italy.Google Scholar
  5. Gibson, J.J. (1979), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gullaud, L. and Vinter, A. (1996), The Role of Visual and Proprioceptive Information in Mirrordrawing Behavior, in M.L. Simmel, C.G. Leedham & A.J.W.M. Thomassen, eds., Handwriting and Drawing Research: Basic and Applied Issues, Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 99–113.Google Scholar
  7. Hanneton S., Gapenne O., Genouel C., Lenay C. and Marque C. (1999), Dynamics of Shape Recognition Through a Minimal Visuo-Tactile Sensory Substitution Interface, in Proceedings of the Third International Conference On Cognitive and Neural Systems, Boston, pp. 26–29.Google Scholar
  8. Kiper, D.C. & Carandini, M. (2002), The Neural Basis of Pattern Vision, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Lenay, C., Cannu S. and Villon, P. (1997), Technology and Perception: The Contribution of Sensory Substitution Systems, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Cognitive Technology, Aizu, Japan, Los Alamitos: IEEE, pp. 44–53.Google Scholar
  10. Lenay, C., Gapenne, O., Hanneton, S. and Stewart, J. (1999), Perception et Couplage Sensori-Moteur: Expériences et Discussion Epistémologique, in A. Drogoul and J-A. Meyer, eds., Intelligence Artificielle Située (IAS'99), Paris: Hermes, pp. 71–86.Google Scholar
  11. Mandik P. (1999), Qualia, Space and Control, Philosophical Psychology 12(1), pp. 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maturana, H. and Varela, F.J. (1987), The Tree of Knowledge, Boston: Shambhala.Google Scholar
  13. Marr, D. (1982), Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  14. O'Regan J.K. and \(\begin{gathered} ` \hfill \\ {\text{No}}{\text{e}} \hfill \\ \end{gathered} \) A. (2001), A Sensorimotor Account of Vision and Visual Consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24, pp. 939–1031.Google Scholar
  15. Piaget J. (1967), Biologie et connaissance: Essai sur les relations entre les régulations organiques et les processus cognitifs, Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  16. Poggio, T. (1983), Visual Algorithms, in O.J. Braddick and A.C. Sleigh, eds., Physical and Biological Processing of Images, Berlin: Springer, pp. 128–153.Google Scholar
  17. Powers, W.T. (1988), An Outline of Control Theory, in The Control Systems Group Inc., Living Control Systems, Kentucky, USA, pp. 253–293.Google Scholar
  18. Schillings, J.J., Meulenbroek, G.J. and Thomassen, A.J.W.M. (1996), Decomposing Trajectory Modifications: Pen-Tip Versus Joint Kinematics, in M.L. Simmel, C.G. Leedham and A.J.W.M. Thomassen, eds., Handwriting and Drawing Research: Basic and Applied Issues, Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 71–85.Google Scholar
  19. Stewart J. (1996), Cognition = Life: Implications for higher-level cognition, Behavioural Processes 35, pp. 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ullman, S. (1980), Against Direct Perception, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, pp. 373–415.Google Scholar
  21. Varela F., Thompson E. and Rosch E. (1993). The Embodied Mind, Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Stewart
    • 1
  • Olivier Gapenne
    • 1
  1. 1.COSTECH, Dept. TSHUniversité de Technologie de CompiègneCompiègne CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations