ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Humans optimally integrate cutaneous and proprioceptive cues in haptic size perception.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Behavioural and neuronal insights into multisensory combination of unpracticed cues.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Humans optimally integrate cutaneous and proprioceptive cues in haptic size perception.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sensory perception relies on the brain's integration of multiple imprecise inputs, a process known as cue combination. Previous research has investigated multisensory integration or unisensory integration within non-haptic senses. In contrast, cue combination within the sense of touch has been understudied. Here, we investigated whether humans optimally combine haptic cutaneous and finger configuration cues when discerning the size of a disk held edge-on between the thumb and index fingers. When these two fingers span the disk to contact its perimeter, a finger configuration cue (the perceived distance between the fingers) provides information about the disk's size. Less obviously, cutaneous cues to disk size may result from the indentation of finger pads caused by the disk's curvature. We considered three hypotheses for how humans might use these cues: they might rely solely on the most reliable cue (Winner-Take-All Model, WTA), combine cues based on a simple arithmetic average (Average Model, AVG), or combine cues via an optimal weighted average (Optimal Model, OPT) in which more reliable cues exert proportionately greater influence on the percept. In three experiments involving 34 participants, we compared participant performance to the predictions of the three models. Each experiment tested participants using a two-interval forced-choice (2IFC) paradigm with 3D printed disk stimuli. On each trial, under occluded vision, participants felt two disks sequentially and responded which felt larger. Participants were tested with the cutaneous index finger cue, cutaneous thumb cue, and finger configuration cue individually and with the three cues together. The three experiments were designed to have progressively greater resolution to distinguish the relevant models from one another. In Experiments 1 and 2, the disks were circular. Experiment 3 included non-circular cue-conflict stimuli. The improvement of accuracy in multi-cue conditions, and perceptual effects of cue-conflict stimuli, were broadly consistent with optimal cue combination. Eight of 12 participants were classified as OPT in Experiment 1; eight of 11 in Experiment 2; and 10 of 11 in Experiment 3. The mean confidence of OPT classifications was 0.56, 0.61, and 0.98, respectively. We conclude that humans combine haptic cues optimally to judge the sizes of held objects.
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.