Tactile perception by mouth: Perceiving properties of objects when vision is impaired
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lips and tongue demonstrate similar or greater spatial acuity than the fingertips. Indeed, infants use the mouth to perceive properties of objects such as hardness, texture, and shape. In normal development, it is assumed that mouthing decreases in favour of increasingly advanced hand exploration patterns. However, anecdotal reports suggest that mouthing continues to serve a perceptual function when a person’s vision is abnormal. This study explored blind or visually impaired (BVI) adults’ self-reported use of mouthing to perceive properties of objects. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 BVI adults with visual acuities ranging from no light perception to 20/40. Data were analysed using content analysis to identify specific properties perceived by the mouth. Despite social norms that discourage mouthing, some BVI adults use oral tactile perception of texture, shape, temperature, and taste to better characterize objects. These findings suggest that compensatory behaviours using the mouth can support the rehabilitation of individuals with abnormal vision.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it