This study was designed to focus on possible interactive effects that scaling method, body test-site, and skin-contactor surface area might have on vibrotactile magnitude functions. The psychophysical scaling methods of magnitude estimation and magnitude production were used to apply vibrotactile stimulation to the anterior midline of the tongue and the thenar eminence of the hand through the use of three skin-contactor areas (.128, .320, and 1.30 cm3). Ten subjects, ranging in age from 19 to 21 yr. (M age = 19.8 yr.) were employed. Data obtained from the 10 subjects suggested that the suprathreshold-scaling method chosen can be a significant determinant of the findings obtained. They further suggested that the tongue and hand may respond differently to suprathreshold vibrotactile stimulation and that the effects of varying skin-contactor area may be different for the two body-sites tested.
References
1.
BekesyG. von.Human skin perception of traveling waves similar to those on the cochlea. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1955, 27, 830–841.
2.
BekesyG. von.Experiments in bearing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
3.
BosmaJ. F.Symposium on oral sensation and perception. Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1967.
4.
FucciD.HarrisD.PetrosinoL.The effect of contactor area on vibrotactile magnitude function exponents for the tongue and hand. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1983, 21, 400–402.
5.
FucciD.HarrisD.PetrosinoL.Sensation magnitude scales for vibrotactile stimulation of the tongue and thenar eminence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1984, 58, 843–848.
6.
FucciD.PetrosinoL.Lingual vibrotactile sensation magnitudes: Comparison of suprathreshold responses for the tongue and hand. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1983, 74, 351–353.
7.
FucciD.PetrosinoL.WallaceD.SmallL.Modification of instrumentation for research on lingual vibrotactile sensitivity: Elimination of the tongue clamping procedure. Review of Scientific Instruments, 1982, 53, 1294–1296.
8.
GeldardF. A.Cutaneous channels of communication. In RosenblithW. A. (Ed.), Sensory communication. New York: Wiley, 1961. Pp. 73–89.
9.
GeldardF. A.The human senses. (2nd ed.) New York: Wiley, 1972.
10.
GreenB. G.CraigJ. C.The roles of vibration amplitude and static force in vibrotactile spatial summation. Perception & Psychophysics, 1974, 16, 503–507.
11.
HarperR.StevensS. S.Subjective hardness of compliant materials. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 16, 204–215.
12.
HarrisD.FucciD.PetrosinoL.Magnitude estimation, magnitude production, and cross-modality matching: Stimulus frequency effects on lingual vibrotactile sensation magnitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University, Athens, OH, 1986.
13.
HellmanR. P.ZwislockiJ.Monaural loudness function at 1000 cps and interaural summation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1963, 35, 856–865.
14.
PetrosinoL.FucciD.HarrisD.Effects of single-session repetitive judgments on magnitude estimation scales for lingual vibrotactile sensation. Perception & Psychophysics, 1985, 37, 205–208.
15.
ReynoldsG. S.StevensS. S.Binaural summation of loudness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1960, 32, 1337–1344.
16.
StevensS. S.On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 1957, 64, 153–181.
17.
StevensS. S.The psychophysics of sensory function. In RosenblithW. A. (Ed.), Sensory communication. New York: Wiley, 1961. Pp. 1–33.
VerrilloR. T.Specificity of a cutaneous receptor. Perception & Psychophysics, 1966, 1, 149–153.
20.
VerrilloR. T.Vibrotactile intensity scaling at several body sites. Conference on cutaneous communication systems and devices. Advanced Research Projects Agency of U. S. Department of Defense and the Office of Naval Research. Royal Inn, Monterey, California, April 17–18, 1974.
21.
VerrilloR. T.CapraroA.Effect of stimulus frequency on subjective vibrotactile magnitude functions. Perception & Psychophysics, 1975, 17, 91–96.
22.
VerrilloR. T.ChamberlainS. C.The effect of neural density and contactor surround on vibrotactile sensation magnitude. Perception & Psychophysics, 1972, 6, 366–372.
