scholarly journals Crossmodal Perceptual Learning and Sensory Substitution

i-Perception ◽  
10.1068/ic745 ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (8) ◽  
pp. 745-745
Author(s):  
Michael J Proulx
2019 ◽  
pp. 209-218
Author(s):  
Kevin Connolly

The concluding chapter argues that perceptual learning has relevance for philosophy far beyond philosophy of mind—in epistemology, philosophy of science, and social philosophy, among other domains. The goal of this chapter is to extend one major focus of the book, which is to identify the scope of perceptual learning. Chapters 3 through 7 argued that perceptual learning occurs in all sorts of domains in the philosophy of mind, including natural kind recognition, sensory substitution, multisensory perception, speech perception, and color perception. This chapter extends that scope beyond philosophy of mind and offers some initial sketches of ways in which we can apply knowledge of perceptual learning to those domains.


Author(s):  
Kevin 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.


2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Arnold ◽  
Malika Auvray

Visual-to-tactile sensory substitution devices are designed to assist visually impaired people by converting visual stimuli into tactile stimuli. The important claim has been made that, after training with these devices, the tactile stimuli can be moved from one body surface to another without any decrease in performance. This claim, although recurrent, has never been empirically investigated. Moreover, studies in the field of tactile perceptual learning suggest that performance improvement transfers only to body surfaces that are closely represented in the somatosensory cortex, i.e. adjacent or homologous contralateral body surfaces. These studies have however mainly used discrimination tasks of stimuli varying along only one feature (e.g., orientation of gratings) whereas, in sensory substitution, tactile information consists of more complex stimuli. The present study investigated the extent to which there is a transfer of tactile letter learning. Participants first underwent a baseline session in which the letters were presented on their belly, thigh, and shin. They were subsequently trained on only one of these body surfaces, and then re-tested on all of them, as a post-training session. The results revealed that performance improvement was the same for both the trained and the untrained surfaces. Moreover, this transfer of perceptual learning was equivalent for adjacent and non-adjacent body surfaces, suggesting that tactile learning transfer occurs independently of the distance on the body. A control study consisting of the same baseline and post-training sessions, without training in between, revealed weaker improvement between the two sessions. The obtained results support the claim that training with sensory substitution devices results in a relative independence from the stimulated body surface.


2019 ◽  
pp. 101-126
Author(s):  
Kevin Connolly

This chapter explores the relationship between sensory substitution devices and the training of attention. Sensory substitution devices, typically used by the blind, deliver information about the environment by converting the information normally received through one sense (e.g., vision) into information for another sense (e.g., audition or touch). When a user integrates a sensory substitution device into her life, the integration process involves perceptual learning. This chapter explores two questions. First, in what ways can sensory substitution illuminate how the training of attention works more generally? Second, how does knowledge of the way attention is trained in perceptual learning help us to better understand sensory substitution? The chapter draws on findings in these areas to answer a philosophical question: Should the post-perceptual learning experience be classified in the substituted modality (e.g., as vision), in the substituting modality (e.g., as auditory or tactile), or in a new sense modality?


2014 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
pp. 16-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Proulx ◽  
David J. Brown ◽  
Achille Pasqualotto ◽  
Peter Meijer

Author(s):  
Martin Chavant ◽  
Alexis Hervais-Adelman ◽  
Olivier Macherey

Purpose An increasing number of individuals with residual or even normal contralateral hearing are being considered for cochlear implantation. It remains unknown whether the presence of contralateral hearing is beneficial or detrimental to their perceptual learning of cochlear implant (CI)–processed speech. The aim of this experiment was to provide a first insight into this question using acoustic simulations of CI processing. Method Sixty normal-hearing listeners took part in an auditory perceptual learning experiment. Each subject was randomly assigned to one of three groups of 20 referred to as NORMAL, LOWPASS, and NOTHING. The experiment consisted of two test phases separated by a training phase. In the test phases, all subjects were tested on recognition of monosyllabic words passed through a six-channel “PSHC” vocoder presented to a single ear. In the training phase, which consisted of listening to a 25-min audio book, all subjects were also presented with the same vocoded speech in one ear but the signal they received in their other ear differed across groups. The NORMAL group was presented with the unprocessed speech signal, the LOWPASS group with a low-pass filtered version of the speech signal, and the NOTHING group with no sound at all. Results The improvement in speech scores following training was significantly smaller for the NORMAL than for the LOWPASS and NOTHING groups. Conclusions This study suggests that the presentation of normal speech in the contralateral ear reduces or slows down perceptual learning of vocoded speech but that an unintelligible low-pass filtered contralateral signal does not have this effect. Potential implications for the rehabilitation of CI patients with partial or full contralateral hearing are discussed.


2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatjana A. Nazir ◽  
Avital Deutsch ◽  
Jonathan Grainger ◽  
Ram Frost
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document