Abstract
Sensory substitution devices aim at restoring visual functions by converting visual information into auditory or tactile stimuli. Although these devices show promise in the range of behavioral abilities they allow, the processes underlying their use remain underspecified. In particular, while an initial debate focused on the visual versus auditory or tactile nature of sensory substitution, since over a decade, the idea that it reflects a mixture of both has emerged. In order to investigate behaviorally the extent to which visual and auditory processes are involved, participants completed a Stroop-like crossmodal interference paradigm before and after being trained with a conversion device which translates visual images into sounds. In addition, participants' auditory abilities and their phenomenologies were measured. Our study revealed that, after training, when asked to identify sounds, processes shared with vision were involved, as participants’ performance in sound identification was influenced by the simultaneously presented visual distractors. In addition, participants’ performance during training and their associated phenomenology depended on their auditory abilities, revealing that processing finds its roots in the input sensory modality. Our results pave the way for improving the design and learning of these devices by taking into account inter-individual differences in auditory and visual perceptual strategies.
Highlights
Sensory substitution devices aim at restoring visual functions by converting visual information into auditory or tactile stimuli
The same analysis was conducted on response time (RT) data, and showed a significant effect of Session (p < 0.001, β = − 138.98 ± 24.99), but no effect of Similarity (p = 0.18, β = − 105.86 ± 79.10), and no interaction between these two factors (p = 0.68, β = 20.81 ± 50.00)
Noted that, in the instructions given to the participants, the stress was laid on accuracy, not on response latencies, which can explain that the effect was obtained only in the former case
Summary
Sensory substitution devices aim at restoring visual functions by converting visual information into auditory or tactile stimuli. These devices show promise in the range of behavioral abilities they allow, the processes underlying their use remain underspecified. One study directly compared activation longitudinally[20] and did not reveal increased activation, but a change in functional connectivity This result suggests that the observed crossmodal recruitment of the visual cortex during the use of sensory substitution devices can be due to unmasking of existing computations through non-visual inputs already there prior to devices’ u se13,21,22 (see[23] for a review)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
