Sensory Substitution: Unfulfilled Promises and Fundamental Limitations

2018 ◽  
pp. 251-266
Author(s):  
Charles Spence
Keyword(s):  
Sensory Substitution ◽  
Sensory Loss ◽  
Loss Of Vision ◽  
Fundamental Limitations ◽  
Processing Information ◽  
Technological Limitations

Many of the most attention-grabbing claims concerning the uptake of sensory substitution devices in the last 50 years have, noticeably, not come to pass. I highlight a number of the fundamental limitations (some acknowledged, others not) that may have prevented the development and uptake of these devices amongst individuals suffering from sensory loss. First and foremost, it may simply be impossible to fully substitute for the loss of vision (the sense most substituted for) given the imbalance in neural cortical resources given to processing information in the various senses. Second, the inability to substitute for the hedonic attributes of a given modality constitutes an important, if currently under-acknowledged, problem. Most researchers tend to focus their efforts on the substitution of the sensory-discriminative (primarily spatial) aspects of stimulation instead. Third, I highlight the technological limitations associated with providing useful substitution devices for those who have lost their sense of taste or smell, senses which, theoretically, should be far easier to substitute for. Another factor that may have limited the uptake of these devices—aesthetic concerns about the appearance of users wearing them—is, I believe, likely to disappear, as a range of other augmented-perception technologies become more widely accepted.

The Skin as a Medium for Sensory Substitution

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 293-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Spence
Keyword(s):  
Cortical Plasticity ◽  
Low Vision ◽  
Skin Surface ◽  
General Purpose ◽  
Pattern Perception ◽  
Sensory Substitution ◽  
Sensory Loss ◽  
Tactile Information ◽  
Cognitive Limitations ◽  
Locomotion Pattern

The last 50 years or so has seen great optimism concerning the potential of sensory substitution and augmentation devices to enhance the lives of those with (or even those without) some form of sensory loss (in practice, this has typically meant those who are blind or suffering from low vision). One commonly discussed solution for those individuals who are blind has been to use one of a range of tactile–visual sensory substitution systems that represent objects captured by a camera as outline images on the skin surface in real-time (what Loomis, Klatzky and Giudice, 2012, term general-purpose sensory substitution devices). However, despite the fact that touch, like vision, initially codes information spatiotopically, I would like to argue that a number of fundamental perceptual, attentional, and cognitive limitations constraining the processing of tactile information mean that the skin surface is unlikely ever to provide such general-purpose sensory substitution capabilities. At present, there is little evidence to suggest that the extensive cortical plasticity that has been demonstrated in those who have lost (or never had) a sense can do much to overcome the limitations associated with trying to perceive high rates of spatiotemporally varying information presented via the skin surface (no matter whether that surface be the back, stomach, forehead, or tongue). Instead, the use of the skin will likely be restricted to various special-purpose devices that enable specific activities such as navigation, the control of locomotion, pattern perception, etc.

scholarly journals Psychogenic Blindness: A Rare Presentation

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Dutta ◽  
R Poudel ◽  
LJ Thapa ◽  
B Pokhrel
Keyword(s):  
Neurological Examination ◽  
Visual Pathways ◽  
Complete Loss ◽  
Sensory Loss ◽  
Visual Recovery ◽  
Rare Presentation ◽  
Poor Vision ◽  
Loss Of Vision ◽  
Psychiatric Intervention

Psychogenic blindness is a type of dissociative sensory loss which is characterized by unilateral or bilateral loss of vision/poor vision in the absence of any organic cause. We present a case of psychogenic blindness in a 21 years old female, 32 weeks primigravida who had presented with both eye complete loss of vision of 6 days duration. On admission , ophthalmological and neurological examination revealed no abnormality of visual pathways . Psychoeducation and reaasurance lead to complete visual recovery after 12 hrs of first psychiatric intervention.  DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/jpan.v2i2.9729 J Psychiatrists’ Association of Nepal Vol.2, No.2, 2013 49-51

Hearing Gloves and Seeing Tongues? Disability, Sensory Substitution and the Origins of the Neuroplastic Subject

2021 ◽  
pp. 1357034X2110082
Author(s):  
Mark Paterson
Keyword(s):  
William James ◽  
Sensory Substitution ◽  
Sensory Loss ◽  
Massachusetts Institute Of Technology ◽  
Sensory Plasticity ◽  
Substitution System ◽  
Institute Of Technology ◽  
Psychology Literature ◽  
Post War ◽  
Conceptual Foundations

Researchers in post-war industrial laboratories such as Bell Labs and the Smith-Kettlewell Institute pioneered solutions to compensate for sensory loss through so-called sensory substitution systems, premised on an assumption of cortical and sensory plasticity. The article tracks early discussions of plasticity in psychology literature from William James, acknowledged by Wiener, but explicitly developed by Bach-y-Rita and his collaborators. After discussing the conceptual foundations of the principles of sensory substitution, two examples are discussed. First, ‘Project Felix’ was an experiment in vibrotactile communication by means of ‘hearing gloves’ for the deaf at Norbert Wiener’s laboratory at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, demonstrated to Helen Keller in 1950. Second, the tactile-visual sensory substitution system for the blind pioneered by Paul Bach-y-Rita from 1968 onwards. Cumulatively, this article underlines the crucial yet occluded history of research on sensory impairments in the discovery of underlying neurophysiological processes of plasticity and the emergent discourse of neuroplastic subjectivity.

Questions and Answers

2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 3-3
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
James B. Talmage
Keyword(s):  
Nervous System ◽  
Peripheral Nervous System ◽  
Spinal Nerve ◽  
Sensory Loss ◽  
Residual Symptoms ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
Motor Nerves ◽  
Symptoms And Signs ◽  
Limited Motion

Abstract Lesions of the peripheral nervous system (PNS), whether due to injury or illness, commonly result in residual symptoms and signs and, hence, permanent impairment. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) describes procedures for rating upper extremity neural deficits in Chapter 3, The Musculoskeletal System, section 3.1k; Chapter 4, The Nervous System, section 4.4 provides additional information and an example. The AMA Guides also divides PNS deficits into sensory and motor and includes pain within the former. The impairment estimates take into account typical manifestations such as limited motion, atrophy, and reflex, trophic, and vasomotor deficits. Lesions of the peripheral nervous system may result in diminished sensation (anesthesia or hypesthesia), abnormal sensation (dysesthesia or paresthesia), or increased sensation (hyperesthesia). Lesions of motor nerves can result in weakness or paralysis of the muscles innervated. Spinal nerve deficits are identified by sensory loss or pain in the dermatome or weakness in the myotome supplied. The steps in estimating brachial plexus impairment are similar to those for spinal and peripheral nerves. Evaluators should take care not to rate the same impairment twice, eg, rating weakness resulting from a peripheral nerve injury and the joss of joint motion due to that weakness.

Evaluating Shoulder Impairment

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Richard T. Katz ◽  
Sankar Perraraju
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Sensory Loss ◽  
Motor Deficits ◽  
Nerve Lesion ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
Industrial Medicine ◽  
Shoulder Motion ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fourth Edition, offers several categories to describe impairment in the shoulder, including shoulder amputation, abnormal shoulder motion, peripheral nerve disorders, subluxation/dislocation, and joint arthroplasty. This article clarifies appropriate methods for rating shoulder impairment in a specific patient, particularly with reference to the AMA Guides, Section 3.1j, Shoulder, Section 3.1k, Impairment of the Upper Extremity Due to Peripheral Nerve Disorders, and Section 3.1m, Impairment Due to Other Disorders of the Upper Extremity. A table shows shoulder motions and associated degrees of motion and can be used in assessing abnormal range of motion. Assessments of shoulder impairment due to peripheral nerve lesion also requires assessment of sensory loss (or presence of nerve pain) or motor deficits, and these may be categorized to the level of the spinal nerves (C5 to T1). Table 23 is useful regarding impairment from persistent joint subluxation or dislocation, and Table 27 can be helpful in assessing impairment of the upper extremity after arthroplasty of specific bones of joints. Although inter-rater reliability has been reasonably good, the validity of the upper extremity impairment rating has been questioned, and further research in industrial medicine and physical disability is required.

Abstract #809: Spontaneous Pituitary Apoplexy in the Second Trimester Associated with Sensory Loss

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 152
Author(s):  
Rtika Abraham ◽  
Rachel Pollitzer ◽  
Murat Gokden ◽  
Peter Goulden
Keyword(s):  
Pituitary Apoplexy ◽  
Sensory Loss ◽  
Second Trimester

ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES IN CIVIL PROCESS

2019 ◽  
pp. 27-35
Author(s):  
Alexandr Neznamov
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Significant Feature ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Civil Process ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Processing Information ◽  
The Impact

Digital technologies are no longer the future but are the present of civil proceedings. That is why any research in this direction seems to be relevant. At the same time, some of the fundamental problems remain unattended by the scientific community. One of these problems is the problem of classification of digital technologies in civil proceedings. On the basis of instrumental and genetic approaches to the understanding of digital technologies, it is concluded that their most significant feature is the ability to mediate the interaction of participants in legal proceedings with information; their differentiating feature is the function performed by a particular technology in the interaction with information. On this basis, it is proposed to distinguish the following groups of digital technologies in civil proceedings: a) technologies of recording, storing and displaying (reproducing) information, b) technologies of transferring information, c) technologies of processing information. A brief description is given to each of the groups. Presented classification could serve as a basis for a more systematic discussion of the impact of digital technologies on the essence of civil proceedings. Particularly, it is pointed out that issues of recording, storing, reproducing and transferring information are traditionally more «technological» for civil process, while issues of information processing are more conceptual.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document