Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:12:23.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crossmodal processing and sensory substitution: Is “seeing” with sound and touch a form of perception or cognition?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2017

Tayfun Esenkaya  and
Michael J. Proulx
Tayfun Esenkaya
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdomt.esenkaya@bath.ac.uk Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom. m.j.proulx@bath.ac.ukhttp://www.bath.ac.uk/psychology/staff/michael-proulx/
Michael J. Proulx
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom. m.j.proulx@bath.ac.ukhttp://www.bath.ac.uk/psychology/staff/michael-proulx/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The brain has evolved in this multisensory context to perceive the world in an integrated fashion. Although there are good reasons to be skeptical of the influence of cognition on perception, here we argue that the study of sensory substitution devices might reveal that perception and cognition are not necessarily distinct, but rather continuous aspects of our information processing capacities.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e241
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bach-y-Rita, P. & Kercel, S. W. (2003) Sensory substitution and the human–machine interface. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(12):541–46. doi:S1364661303002900 [pii].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghazanfar, A. A. & Schroeder, C. E. (2006) Is neocortex essentially multisensory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(6):278–85. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.008)Google Scholar
Klein, I., Dubois, J., Mangin, J.-F., Kherif, F., Flandin, G., Poline, J.-B. & Le Bihan, D. (2004) Retinotopic organization of visual mental images as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Cognitive Brain Research 22(1):26–31.Google Scholar
Kosslyn, S. M., Pascual-Leone, A., Felician, O., Camposano, S., Keenan, J., Ganis, G. & Alpert, N. (1999) The role of area 17 in visual imagery: Convergent evidence from PET and rTMS. Science 284(5411):167–70.Google Scholar
Meijer, P. B. (1992) An experimental system for auditory image representations. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 39(2):112–21. doi:10.1109/10.121642.Google Scholar
Meredith, M. A. & Stein, B. E. (1986) Visual, auditory, and somatosensory convergence on cells in superior colliculus results in multisensory integration. Journal of Neurophysiology 56(3):640–62.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. J. (1977) Molyneux's question: Vision, touch and the philosophy of perception. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Proulx, M. J. (2011) Consciousness: What, how, and why. Science 332(6033):1034–35. doi:10.1126/Science.1206704.Google Scholar
Proulx, M. J., Brown, D. J., Pasqualotto, A. & Meijer, P. (2014) Multisensory perceptual learning and sensory substitution. Neuroscience and Biobehavoral Reviews 41:16–25. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.11.017.Google Scholar
Stein, B. E., Huneycutt, W. S. & Meredith, M. A. (1988) Neurons and behavior: The same rules of multisensory integration apply. Brain Research 448(2):355–58.Google Scholar
von Helmholtz, H. (2005) Treatise on physiological optics, vol. 3. Courier Dover.Google Scholar
Ward, J. & Meijer, P. (2010) Visual experiences in the blind induced by an auditory sensory substitution device. Consciousness and Cognition 19(1):492–500. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2009.10.006.Google Scholar
Yantis, S. (2013) Sensation and perception. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar