ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2025
Haptic Compensation in Blind People's Conceptual Representations.
Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vision is typically dominant in our perception of the world. Such asymmetry is also observed in conceptual representations. This could be driven by perceptual experience or learned from other input, such as language. In this study we tested the role of direct perceptual experience in conceptual representation by investigating the sensory underpinnings of word meanings in blind and sighted individuals. Seventeen early-blind and 17 matched sighted Dutch native speakers rated 100 Dutch nouns for their sensory associations across six modalities (vision, audition, haptic, interoception, gustation, and olfaction) on a 0 (not at all) to 5 (very much) scale. To cover a range of concepts we used five semantic categories thought to be strongly associated with different sensory modalities: animals (vision), instruments (audition), tactile objects (haptics), food (gustation), and odor objects (olfaction). We found no difference between blind and sighted individuals in their ratings of visual associations, suggesting that conceptual associations with vision can be learned indirectly via means beyond direct visual perception. However, blind participants did associate concepts more strongly with haptics than sighted participants for all semantic categories except animals. This is evidence for crossmodal compensation in conceptual representation, in line with enhanced tactile acuity reported elsewhere for blind individuals. Overall, the results point to a role for perceptual experience in conceptual representation, but suggest there are other strategies that can be recruited to learn about perception, supporting hybrid models of semantic representation.
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.