The Natural Truth: The Contribution of Vision and Touch in the Categorisation of “Naturalness”

  • T. Aisling Whitaker
  • Cristina Simões-Franklin
  • Fiona N. Newell
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5024)

Abstract

Being able to readily discriminate between natural things and synthetic mimics in our environment is an important ability for many species. Making these judgements relies on the acuity of our different senses. Here, we investigated the relative contribution of visual and tactile cues, alone or in combination, to the categorisation of wood and fabric stimuli as natural or unnatural. For both wood and fabric stimuli we found that natural and unnatural stimuli could be discriminated, although performance varied as a function of modality. Specifically, for the wood stimuli, performance was better when vision and touch were combined, whereas for the fabric stimuli, performance was least accurate when using touch alone, compared to the visual or bimodal conditions, which were quantitatively similar. We concluded that both vision and touch contribute, albeit in qualitatively different ways, to the perception of “naturalness”, and that a combination of these modalities facilitates this perception.

Keywords

Naturalness Vision Touch Visuotactile Bimodal Texture Wood Fabric 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adelson, E.H.: On seeing stuff: the perception of materials by humans and machines. In: Rogowitz, B.E., Pappas, T.N. (eds.) Proc. of the SPIE, 2001. Human Vision and Electronic Imaging VI, vol. 4299, pp. 1–12, International Society for Optical Engineering, Bellingham, WA (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ballesteros, S., Reales, J.M., Pónce de Leon, L., García, B.: The Perception of ecological textures by touch: Does the perceptual space change under bimodal visual and haptic exploration? In: Proc. of the First Joint Eurohaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (World Haptics), World Haptics (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergmann Tiest, W.M., Kappers, A.M.L.: Analysis of haptic perception of materials by multidimensional scaling and physical measurements of roughness and compressibility. Acta Psychol. 121, 1–20 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergmann Tiest, W.M., Kappers, A.M.L.: Haptic and visual perception of roughness. Acta Psychol. 124, 177–189 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown, I.D.: Visual and tactual judgements of surface roughness. Ergonomics 3, 51–61 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guest, S., Spence, C.: What role does multisensory integration play in the visuotactile perception of texture? Int. J. Psychophysiol. 50, 63–80 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hollins, M., Bensmaïa, S.J., Karlof, K., Young, F.: Individual differences in perceptual space for tactile textures: Evidence from multidimensional scaling. Percept. Psychophys. 62, 1534–1544 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hollins, M., Faldowski, R., Rao, S., Young, F.: Perceptual dimensions of tactile surface texture: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Percept. Psychophys. 54, 697–705 (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Humphrey, G.K., Goodale, M.A., Jakobson, L.S., Servos, P.: The role of surface information in object recognition: Studies of a visual form agnosic and normal subjects. Perception 23, 1457–1481 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lederman, S.J., Klatzky, R.L.: Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition. Cognit. Psychol. 19, 342–368 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Picard, D., Dacremont, C., Valentin, D., Giboreau, A.: Perceptual dimensions of tactile textures. Acta. Psychol. 114, 165–184 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rozin, P.: The meaning of “natural”. Psychol. Sci. 16, 652–658 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Shields, C.: Conceptions of “natural” in the domain of foods in France, Germany, Italy, U.K. and the USA. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (unpublished manuscript, 2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., et al.: Natural preference: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between food and medicines. Appetite 43, 147–154 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Aisling Whitaker
    • 1
  • Cristina Simões-Franklin
    • 1
  • Fiona N. Newell
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Psychology and Institute of NeuroscienceTrinity College DublinIreland

Personalised recommendations