4.5 Article

Haptic study of three-dimensional objects activates extrastriate visual areas

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 40, 期 10, 页码 1706-1714

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00017-9

关键词

fMRI; priming; somatosensory; vision; haptic; object recognition; neuroimaging; human brain mapping

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In humans and many other primates, the visual system plays the major role in object recognition. But objects call also he recognized through haptic exploration, which uses our sense of touch. Nonetheless, it has been argued that the haptic system makes use of 'visual' processing to construct a representation of the object. To investigate possible interactions between the visual and haptic systems. we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure the effects of cross-modal haptic-to-visual priming on brain activation. Subjects Studied three-dimensional novel clay objects either visually or haptically before entering the scanner. During scanning. Subjects viewed visually printed, haptically primed, and non-primed objects. They also haptically explored non-primed objects. Visual and haptic exploration of non-primed objects produced significant activation in several brain regions. and produced overlapping activation in the middle occipital area (MO). Viewing visually and haptically primed objects produced more activation than viewing non-primed objects in both area MO and the lateral occipital area (LO). In summary, haptic exploration of novel three-dimensional Objects produced activation. not only in somatosensory cortex, but also in areas of the occipital cortex associated with visual processing. Furthermore. previous haptic experience with these objects enhanced activation in visual areas when these same objects Were subsequently viewed. Taken together, these results suggest that the object-representation systems of the ventral visual pathway are exploited for haptic object perception. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据