Haptic object perception: spatial dimensionality and relation to vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enabled by the remarkable dexterity of the human hand, specialized haptic exploration is a hallmark of object perception by touch. Haptic exploration normally takes place in a spatial world that is three-dimensional; nevertheless, stimuli of reduced spatial dimensionality are also used to display spatial information. This paper examines the consequences of full (three-dimensional) versus reduced (two-dimensional) spatial dimensionality for object processing by touch, particularly in comparison with vision. We begin with perceptual recognition of common human-made artefacts, then extend our discussion of spatial dimensionality in touch and vision to include faces, drawing from research on haptic recognition of facial identity and emotional expressions. Faces have often been characterized as constituting a specialized input for human perception. We find that contrary to vision, haptic processing of common objects is impaired by reduced spatial dimensionality, whereas haptic face processing is not. We interpret these results in terms of fundamental differences in object perception across the modalities, particularly the special role of manual exploration in extracting a three-dimensional structure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".