Confidence is higher in touch than in vision in cases of perceptual ambiguity

Abstract The inclination to touch objects that we can see is a surprising behaviour, given that vision often supplies relevant and sufficiently accurate sensory evidence. Here we suggest that this ‘fact-checking’ phenomenon could be explained if touch provides a higher level of perceptual certainty...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Merle T. Fairhurst, Eoin Travers, Vincent Hayward, Ophelia Deroy
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2018
Materias:	Subjective Truth VH Illusion Confidence Ratings Detection-theoretic Model Metacognitive Sensitivity Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/542591063ad2452fb8ad2bcf883aa8fe
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:542591063ad2452fb8ad2bcf883aa8fe
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:542591063ad2452fb8ad2bcf883aa8fe2021-12-02T15:09:01ZConfidence is higher in touch than in vision in cases of perceptual ambiguity10.1038/s41598-018-34052-z2045-2322https://doaj.org/article/542591063ad2452fb8ad2bcf883aa8fe2018-10-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34052-zhttps://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract The inclination to touch objects that we can see is a surprising behaviour, given that vision often supplies relevant and sufficiently accurate sensory evidence. Here we suggest that this ‘fact-checking’ phenomenon could be explained if touch provides a higher level of perceptual certainty than vision. Testing this hypothesis, observers explored inverted T-shaped stimuli eliciting the Vertical-horizontal illusion in vision and touch, which included clear-cut and ambiguous cases. In separate blocks, observers judged whether the vertical bar was shorter or longer than the horizontal bar and rated the confidence in their judgments. Decisions reached by vision were objectively more accurate than those reached by touch with higher overall confidence ratings. However, while confidence was higher for vision rather than for touch in clear-cut cases, observers were more confident in touch when the stimuli were ambiguous. This relative bias as a function of ambiguity qualifies the view that confidence tracks objective accuracy and uses a comparable mapping across sensory modalities. Employing a perceptual illusion, our method disentangles objective and subjective accuracy showing how the latter is tracked by confidence and point towards possible origins for ‘fact checking’ by touch.Merle T. FairhurstEoin TraversVincent HaywardOphelia DeroyNature PortfolioarticleSubjective TruthVH IllusionConfidence RatingsDetection-theoretic ModelMetacognitive SensitivityMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 8, Iss 1, Pp 1-9 (2018)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Subjective Truth VH Illusion Confidence Ratings Detection-theoretic Model Metacognitive Sensitivity Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Subjective Truth VH Illusion Confidence Ratings Detection-theoretic Model Metacognitive Sensitivity Medicine R Science Q Merle T. Fairhurst Eoin Travers Vincent Hayward Ophelia Deroy Confidence is higher in touch than in vision in cases of perceptual ambiguity
description	Abstract The inclination to touch objects that we can see is a surprising behaviour, given that vision often supplies relevant and sufficiently accurate sensory evidence. Here we suggest that this ‘fact-checking’ phenomenon could be explained if touch provides a higher level of perceptual certainty than vision. Testing this hypothesis, observers explored inverted T-shaped stimuli eliciting the Vertical-horizontal illusion in vision and touch, which included clear-cut and ambiguous cases. In separate blocks, observers judged whether the vertical bar was shorter or longer than the horizontal bar and rated the confidence in their judgments. Decisions reached by vision were objectively more accurate than those reached by touch with higher overall confidence ratings. However, while confidence was higher for vision rather than for touch in clear-cut cases, observers were more confident in touch when the stimuli were ambiguous. This relative bias as a function of ambiguity qualifies the view that confidence tracks objective accuracy and uses a comparable mapping across sensory modalities. Employing a perceptual illusion, our method disentangles objective and subjective accuracy showing how the latter is tracked by confidence and point towards possible origins for ‘fact checking’ by touch.
format	article
author	Merle T. Fairhurst Eoin Travers Vincent Hayward Ophelia Deroy
author_facet	Merle T. Fairhurst Eoin Travers Vincent Hayward Ophelia Deroy
author_sort	Merle T. Fairhurst
title	Confidence is higher in touch than in vision in cases of perceptual ambiguity
title_short	Confidence is higher in touch than in vision in cases of perceptual ambiguity
title_full	Confidence is higher in touch than in vision in cases of perceptual ambiguity
title_fullStr	Confidence is higher in touch than in vision in cases of perceptual ambiguity
title_full_unstemmed	Confidence is higher in touch than in vision in cases of perceptual ambiguity
title_sort	confidence is higher in touch than in vision in cases of perceptual ambiguity
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2018
url	https://doaj.org/article/542591063ad2452fb8ad2bcf883aa8fe
work_keys_str_mv	AT merletfairhurst confidenceishigherintouchthaninvisionincasesofperceptualambiguity AT eointravers confidenceishigherintouchthaninvisionincasesofperceptualambiguity AT vincenthayward confidenceishigherintouchthaninvisionincasesofperceptualambiguity AT opheliaderoy confidenceishigherintouchthaninvisionincasesofperceptualambiguity
_version_	1718387937428635648

Confidence is higher in touch than in vision in cases of perceptual ambiguity

Ejemplares similares