MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413307746 · doi:10.1186/s13293-025-00747-y

The role of visual experience in haptic spatial perception: evidence from early blind, late blind, and sighted individuals

2025· article· en· W4413307746 on OpenAlexafffund
Lara A. Coelho, Daniela E. Aguilar Ramirez, Serena Basta, Marta Guarischi, Claudia L. R. Gonzalez, Monica Gori

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Sex Differences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersHORIZON EUROPE European Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHaptic technologyPerceptionStereotaxyPsychologyHaptic perceptionBlindnessVisual perceptionTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyAudiologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicineNeuroscienceOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is contradictory evidence on the effect that visual experience has on haptic abilities. Indeed, some studies have documented that a lack of vision (blindness) results in decreased haptic perception, whereas other studies report an enhanced haptic ability in blind individuals. To examine the role of vision in haptic spatial processing, we recruited early blind, late blind, and sighted participants. Each participant completed a haptic task in which they explored a two-piece LEGO model for eight seconds before searching for the same pieces in a bowl of distractors. Our results showed that blind individuals made more errors than sighted participants. Furthermore, early blind participants performed worse than both late blind and sighted participants, who performed similarly. These findings highlight the importance that vision plays in the development of accurate haptic spatial perception. Additionally, we investigated whether the commonly reported male advantage in haptic tasks depends on visual experience. Our results showed better performance by males in all groups when compared to females. This result suggests that sex differences in haptic spatial processing are a fundamental characteristic of human sensory function, independent of visual experience.Highlights No study has investigated if the previously identified male advantage in haptic spatial processing is mediated by visual experience. Blind participants made more errors than sighted participants; early blind performed the worst. The findings suggest vision is crucial for the development of accurate haptic spatial perception. There was a consistent male advantage in haptic performance across all visual experience groups. Sex differences in haptic spatial ability appear to be independent of visual expertise. Plain language summarySome researchers have suggested that being blind reduces abilities in their other senses, while others believe that a lack of vision can improve them. To further understand which is true, we investigated whether the haptic system-the combination of touch and proprioception (awareness of where the body is in space)-is affected by blindness. To do this, we tested people who were blind from birth (early blind), people who became blind later in life (late blind), and people who can see (sighted) on a simple haptic task. In the task, participants felt a small LEGO model with their hands for eight seconds. Then, they had to find the same LEGO pieces in a bowl filled with other, distractor pieces-using only haptics. We found that blind participants made more mistakes than sighted participants. Those who were blind from birth had the most difficulty. People who became blind later in life performed similarly to sighted individuals. This suggests that vision plays an important role in developing accurate haptic perception. As previous work has shown that males outperform females on haptic tasks, we also investigated whether those differences depended on vision. We found that males performed better than females in all groups, regardless of whether they were blind or sighted. This suggests that sex differences in haptic ability may be a basic feature of how our senses work and not just related to 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of Sex DifferencesSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207