PubMed1999
In four experiments, reducing lenses were used to minify vision and generate intersensory size conflicts between vision and touch. Subjects made size judgments, using either visual matching or haptic matching. In visual matching, the subjects chose from a set of visible squares that progressively increased in size. In haptic matching, the subjects selected matches from an array of tangible wooden squares. In Experiment 1, it was found that neither sense dominated when subjects exposed to an intersensory discrepancy made their size estimates by using either visual matching or haptic matching. Size judgments were nearly indentical for conflict subjects making visual or haptic matches. Thus, matching modality did not matter in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, it was found that subjects were influenced by the sight of their hands, which led to increases in the magnitude of their size judgments. Sight of the hands produced more accurate judgments, with subjects being better able to compensate for the illusory effects of the reducing lens. In two additional experiments, it was found that when more precise judgments were required and subjects had to generate their own size estimates, the response modality dominated. Thus, vision dominated in Experiment 3, where size judgments derived from viewing a metric ruler, whereas touch dominated in Experiment 4, where subjects made size estimates with a pincers posture of their hands. It is suggested that matching procedures are inadequate for assessing intersensory dominance relations. These results qualify the position (Hershberger & Misceo, 1996) that the modality of size estimates influences the resolution of intersensory conflicts. Only when required to self-generate more precise judgments did subjects rely on one sense, either vision or touch. Thus, task and attentional requirements influence dominance relations, and vision does not invariably prevail over touch.