Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36968748›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Visual and haptic cues in processing occlusion.

Hiroshige Takeichi, Keito Taniguchi, Hiroaki Shigemasu

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 55% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hiroshige TakeichiComputational Engineering Applications Unit, Head Office for Information Systems and Cybersecurity (ISC), RIKEN, Wako, Saitama, Japan.
Keito TaniguchiSchool of Information, Kochi University of Technology, Kami, Kochi, Japan.
Hiroaki ShigemasuSchool of Information, Kochi University of Technology, Kami, Kochi, Japan.
Kochi University of Technology · JPRIKEN · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Although shape is effective in processing occlusion, ambiguities in segmentation can also be addressed using depth discontinuity given visually and haptically. This study elucidates the contribution of visual and haptic cues to depth discontinuity in processing occlusion. Methods: A virtual reality experiment was conducted with 15 students as participants. Word stimuli were presented on a head-mounted display for recognition. The central part of the words was masked with a virtual ribbon placed at different depths so that the ribbon appeared as an occlusion. The visual depth cue was either present with binocular stereopsis or absent with monocular presentation. The haptic cue was either missing, provided consecutively, or concurrently, by actively tracing a real off-screen bar edge that was positionally aligned with the ribbon in the virtual space. Recognition performance was compared between depth cue conditions. Results: We found that word recognition was better with the stereoscopic cue but not with the haptic cue, although both cues contributed to greater confidence in depth estimation. The performance was better when the ribbon was at the farther depth plane to appear as a hollow, rather than when it was at the nearer depth plane to cover the word. Discussion: The results indicate that occlusion is processed in the human brain by visual input only despite the apparent effectiveness of haptic space perception, reflecting a complex set of natural constraints.

Indexed as

depth cueshaptic perceptionimage segmentationvirtual realityvisual pathways

Identifiers

PMID36968748
PMCPMC10036393
OpenAlexW4323857846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read6
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.