Elsevier

Brain Research Bulletin

Volume 75, Issue 6, 15 April 2008, Pages 742-752
Brain Research Bulletin

Research report
A brief taxonomy of tactile illusions and demonstrations that can be done in a hardware store

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2008.01.008Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper surveys more than twenty types of tactile illusions and discusses several of their aspects. These aspects include the ease with which they can be demonstrated and whether they have clear visual analogs. The paper also shows how to construct equipment made of simple supplies able to deliver well-controlled tactile signals in order to conveniently demonstrate four different tactile illusions.

Introduction

Perceptual illusions have furnished considerable material for study and amusement, probably much before Aristotle discussed them. Tactile and haptic illusions are frequently discussed in terms of similitude with visual counterparts, if one excludes, of course, those resulting from cross-modal interactions. An example of the parallels that are often drawn between tactile and visual illusions is found in the comments of Rivers regarding the “reverse Aristotle illusion” [67]. This illusion is when people feel only one surface (sometimes three) when two surfaces are in contact with the outer sides of the crossed fingers. In the classic Aristotle illusion most people feel two objects when only one is touched with crossed fingers (see Fig. 1). Rivers regarded this as an analog to stereopsis, to use a modern terminology. A further example, more recently discussed by Benedetti is diplesthesia that was viewed as a tactile equivalent to diplopia, or double vision [5]. Pushing gently on the corner of one eye causes diplopia, while pressing two fingers touching the same object can cause a doubling of the sensation, or diplesthesia. The analogy was thus motivated by the observation that in the two cases the perceptual disjunction results from external mechanical perturbation.

Generally, however, far fewer tactile illusions than visual or even auditory illusions have been described. A likely contributing factor to the relatively small number of known tactile illusions is not that there are few of them, but that many visual illusions can be created out of simple materials such as pencil and paper, or even simply by looking at a natural scene under the right conditions. Moreover, with the development of computers and of the Internet, uncountable websites provide a huge repository of visual illusions which are easily accessible. To a lesser extent, this is also true of auditory illusions. But for touch, there are very few that are easily accessible with the exception of an amusing version of what could be said to be a case of diplesthesia occurring when holding a pen between the lips while pulling the mouth corners diagonally [56]. To demonstrate and study tactile illusions, one is often required to set up equipment that can create the proper conditions, and rarely do they arise naturally in an obvious manner.

A first aim of this paper is to describe a taxonomy of tactile illusions, concluding that certain are quite specifically tactile and do not have clear visual analogs. As we will proceed in listing these known tactile illusions, we will indicate the ease with which they can be demonstrated. In a second part of this article, the means for producing some of these effects with commonly available supplies will be described. For more systematic studies, the generation of computer-controlled stimuli can be accomplished with special purpose, or robotic-like electromechanical equipment.

Several definitions exist for what is an illusion. These definitions can include or exclude different types of phenomena. An extreme view is that all perceptual processes are illusions to some extent. Another view is that an illusion is a wrong perception. What constitutes a wrong perception is nevertheless a debatable notion. The idea of illusions being when the senses are deceived is not satisfactory, even if illusions can be employed for deception, as in camouflage. Different stimuli can produce the same percept. For example, in color perception it is known that different spectra can elicit the same color [14]. Thus, a color percept is always wrong given a class of equivalent stimuli, yet it is not an illusion. On the other hand, equivalent stimuli form a rich source of illusions.

In the view of the author, an illusion is a percept arising from a specific stimulus delivered under specific conditions that gives a different conscious experience when the conditions are changed. In other words, the information available to the perceiver should be separable into a constant part and a variable part, and the percept produced by the constant part should be contingent on the variable part which can include endogenous neural states. In addition, the change should be surprising, unexpected, even amusing when the perceiver becomes aware of it. Consider for example the “moon illusion” [41]. The moon disk creates the same retinal image whether it is near the horizon or up in the sky, yet its perceptual size changes. With the “Necker cube illusion”, prolonged viewing can produce perceptual switches even when the viewing conditions do not vary [44]. In the former case, the visual context modifies the perception of the same disk. In the latter case, the conditions refer to endogenous neural states since the whole of the visual input is essentially invariant.

There are many motivations for the study of illusions in general, and of tactile illusions in particular. Some of these motivations are practical. Illusions are at the basis of virtually all technological displays, from cinematography, to computer screens, to audio reproduction systems. This is also true of haptic interfaces. More generally, they provide important clues regarding the processes at all levels that allow the brain to perceive and to be conscious. They have theoretical value since they suggest methods to test models, but also have clinical applications to detect sensory dysfunction.

Section snippets

A brief taxonomy

We now attempt to catalog tactile illusions as they are reported in the literature. In the interest of brevity, were excluded those illusions related to the awareness of one's own body, such as phantom limb phenomena or limb position-sense effects. Those could be the topic of a separate survey. Here we collect phenomena related to the perception of the world outside the body. Table 1 can be consulted for a summary.

Demonstrations of modest complexity

Some of the cases we have surveyed (see Table 1), can readily be demonstrated with ready-made household items such as salad bowls or chopsticks. Some require specific electromechanical equipment. In this section we look at a third category that can be demonstrated with moderately complex equipment realizable with supplies found in hardware stores.

These illusions are astonishing, robust, easy to demonstrate almost immediately, and in each case can be created in more elaborate and controlled

Discussion

Demonstrations of illusions are valuable because many people can experience them, not just a few subjects. They are portable and communicable. The spontaneous comments of many observers may sometimes be illuminating. But of course, demonstrations do not replace systematic scientific investigations where the stimuli and the conditions under which they are delivered are rigorously controlled.

It is usually a significant electromechanical challenge to design machines that can deliver, under

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a discovery grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada. The author would like to thank McGill University for a sabbatical leave. Edouard Gentaz, Jim Clark, Anatole Lécuyer, Hanifa Dostmohamed, Maarten Wijntjes, Mounia Ziat, Masashi Nakaniti, Vincent Levesque, Gabriel Robles-De-La-Torre, C. Elaine Chapman, and Allan M. Smith provided helpful comments.

References (91)

  • A. Gallace et al.

    When visual transients impair tactile change detection: a novel case of crossmodal change blindness?

    Neurosci. Lett.

    (2006)
  • Q. Wang et al.

    In vivo biomechanics of the fingerpad skin under local tangential traction

    J. Biomech.

    (2007)
  • E.L. Amazeen et al.

    Weight perception and haptic sizeweight illusion are functions of the inertial tensor

    J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform.

    (1996)
  • T. Amemiya et al.

    Virtual force display: direction guidance using asymmetric acceleration via periodic translational motion

  • L. Armstrong et al.

    Haptic perception of linear extent

    Percept. Psychophys.

    (1999)
  • P. Bach-y-Rita et al.

    Vision substitution by tactile image projection

    Nature

    (1969)
  • F. Benedetti

    Tactile diplopia (diplesthesia) on the human fingers

    Perception

    (1986)
  • A. Bicchi et al.

    Haptic illusions induced by tactile flow

  • G.P. Bingham et al.

    Distortions in definite distance and shape perception as measured by reaching without and with haptic feedback

    J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform.

    (2000)
  • F. Blankenburg et al.

    The cutaneous rabbit illusion affects human primary sensory cortex somatotopically

    PLoS Biol.

    (2006)
  • A.S. Bregman

    Auditory Scene Analysis

    (1990)
  • J.-P. Bresciani et al.

    Feeling what you hear: auditory signals can modulate tactile tap perception

    Exp. Brain Res.

    (2005)
  • A. Charpentier

    Analyse expérimentale de quelques éléments de la sensation de poids

    Arch. Physiol. Normale Pathol.

    (1891)
  • L.M. Chen et al.

    Optical imaging of a tactile illusion in area 3b of the primary somatosensory cortex

    Science

    (2003)
  • M. Cheng

    Tactile-kinesthetic perception of length

    Am. J. Psychol.

    (1968)
  • J.B. Cohen et al.

    Metameric color stimuli, fundamental metamers, and wyszecki's metameric blacks

    Am. J. Psychol.

    (1982)
  • R.H. Cormack

    Haptic illusion: apparent elongation of a disk rotated between the fingers

    Science

    (1973)
  • J.C. Craig et al.

    Temporal order and tactile pattern

    Percept. Psychophys.

    (1990)
  • R.S. Davidon et al.

    Apparent distance in a horizontal plane with tactile-kinesthetic stimuli

    Q. J. Exp. Psychol.

    (1964)
  • R.H. Day

    The Bourdon illusion in haptic space

    Percept. Psychophys.

    (1990)
  • J.-L.J. de Mendoza

    Demonstration of an after effect occurring in the tactile-kinesthtic domain

    Psychol. Rev.

    (1979)
  • D.E. DiFranco et al.

    The effect of the auditory cues on the haptic perception of stiffness in virtual environments

  • C.-J. Dong et al.

    The auditory motion aftereffect: its tuning and specificity in the spatial and frequency domains

    Percept. Psychophys.

    (2000)
  • H. Dostmohamed et al.

    Trajectory of contact region on the fingerpad gives the illusion of haptic shape

    Exp. Brain Res.

    (2005)
  • R.R. Ellis et al.

    The golf ball illusion: evidence of for the top–down processing in weight perception

    Perception

    (1998)
  • R.R. Ellis et al.

    The material-weight illusion revisited

    Percept. Psychophys.

    (1999)
  • M.O. Ernst et al.

    Human integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion human integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion

    Nature

    (2002)
  • H. Faineteau et al.

    The kinaesthetic perception of euclidean distance: a study of the detour effect

    Exp. Brain Res.

    (2003)
  • J.R. Flanagan et al.

    Coming to grips with weight perception: effect of graps configuration on perceived heaviness

    Percept. Psychophys.

    (2000)
  • J.R. Flanagan et al.

    Effects of surface texture on weight perception when lifting objects with a precision grip

    Percept. Psychophys.

    (1995)
  • A. Gallace et al.

    The failure to detect tactile change: a tactile analogue of visual change blindness

    J. Psychon. Bull. Rev.

    (2006)
  • E.P. Gardner et al.

    Sensory funneling. I. psychophysical observations of human subjects and responses of cutaneous mechanoreceptive afferents in the cat to patterned skin stimuli

    J. Neurophysiol.

    (1972)
  • F.A. Geldard

    The mutability of time and space on the skin

    J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

    (1985)
  • E. Gentaz et al.

    Geometrical haptic illusions: the role of exploration in the Müller-Lyer, vertical–horizontal, and Delboeuf illusions

    Psychon. Bull. Rev.

    (2004)
  • M.S. Grandy et al.

    Opposite perceptual and sensorimotor responses to a size-weight illusion

    J. Neurophysiol.

    (2006)
  • S. Guest et al.

    Audiotactile interactions in roughness perception

    Exp. Brain Res.

    (2002)
  • B. Hardy et al.

    Cognitive processes involved in the utilisation of a simple visuo-tactile sensory prosthesis

  • V. Hayward et al.

    Haptic interfaces and devices

    Sens. Rev.

    (2004)
  • V. Hayward et al.

    Tactile display device using distributed lateral skin stretch

  • M.A. Heller

    Visual and tactual texture perception: intersensory cooperation

    Percept. Psychophys.

    (1982)
  • M.A. Heller et al.

    Mechanisms in the haptic horizontal–vertical illusion: evidence from sighted and blind subjects

    Percept. Psychophys.

    (1993)
  • M. Hershenson

    The Moon Illusion

    (1989)
  • N. Hogan et al.

    Haptic illusions: experiments on human manipulation and perception of “virtual objects

  • M. Hollins et al.

    The tactile movement aftereffect

    Somatosens. Motor Res.

    (1994)
  • J. Ito et al.

    Perceptual switching, eye movements, and the bus paradox

    Perception

    (2003)
  • Cited by (134)

    • Illusory tactile movement crosses arms and legs and is coded in external space

      2022, Cortex
      Citation Excerpt :

      Thus, both external and anatomical factors appear to shape localization in touch. The idea that anatomical and external space interact has been proposed as the origin of several tactile illusions and effects (e.g., Aristotle Illusion: Hayward, 2008; crossing effect: Badde & Heed, 2016; Heed & Azañón, 2014; Shore et al., 2002; Yamamoto & Kitazawa, 2001). The influence of anatomical factors is compatible with views that attribute the rabbit effect to early unimodal somatosensory processing (Flach & Haggard, 2006; Geldard, 1985; Geldard & Sherrick, 1972).

    • Effects of visual and auditory cues on haptic illusions for active and passive touches in mixed reality

      2021, International Journal of Human Computer Studies
      Citation Excerpt :

      Distinguishing active and passive touch in controlling UI gadgets in MR presents implications for our understanding of how users operate interfaces. These two distinctive situations were employed to examine the “cross-modal effect” and “haptic illusion,” which have been suggested as substitutes for physical contact (Hayward, 2008). The experimental findings provide insights into the potential for, and limitations of, touch illusion in MR.

    • A review of the neurobiomechanical processes underlying secure gripping in object manipulation

      2021, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
      Citation Excerpt :

      This updating process is thought to rely on a comparator mechanism, where predicted and actual sensory outcomes are weighted in terms of the action goal, with motor output adjusted accordingly if required (Heald et al., 2018). An excellent illustration of the interaction between stored knowledge, predictive processing, and sensory feedback is the size/material-weight illusion (e.g., see Buckingham, 2014; Flanagan and Beltzner, 2000; Wolf et al., 2018; Hayward, 2008; Murray et al., 1999). Specifically, in the size-weight illusion individuals tend to judge the smaller of two equally-weighted objects to be heavier than the larger one.

    • Haptic Illusions through Augmenting Humans and Environments

      2023, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text