ArticleScientific reports2018
Confidence is higher in touch than in vision in cases of perceptual ambiguity.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emulating sensation by bridging neuromorphic computing and multisensory integration.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Touch-driven advantages in reaction time but not in performance in a cross-sensory comparison of reinforcement learning.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Cross-modal metacognition: Visual and tactile confidence share a common scale.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Exploring multisensory integration of non-naturalistic sounds on body perception in young females with eating disorders symptomatology: a study protocol.Journal of eating disorders · 2023Article
- Visual and haptic cues in processing occlusion.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Feeling our way: methodological explorations on researching touch through uncertainty.International journal of social research methodology · 2023Article
- Effects of pitch and musical sounds on body-representations when moving with sound.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Minimal interplay between explicit knowledge, dynamics of learning and temporal expectations in different, complex uni- and multisensory contexts.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2021Article
- Visualizing 3D imagery by mouth using candy-like models.Science advances · 2021Article
- The Perceived Match Between Observed and Own Bodies, but Not Its Accuracy, Is Influenced by Movement Dynamics and Clothing Cues.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.