There is something out there: distal attribution in sensory substitution, twenty years later.

TLDR: Sensory substitution constitutes an interesting domain of study to consider the philosopher's classical question of distal attribution: how the authors can distinguish between a sensation and the perception of an object that causes this sensation.

Abstract: Sensory substitution constitutes an interesting domain of study to consider the philosopher's classical question of distal attribution: how we can distinguish between a sensation and the perception of an object that causes this sensation. We tested the hypothesis that distal attribution consists of three distinct components: an object, a perceptual space, and a coupling between subjects' movements and stimulation. We equipped sixty participants with a visual-to-auditory substitution device, without any information about it. The device converts the video stream produced by a head-mounted camera into a sound stream. We investigated several experimental conditions: the existence or not of a correlation between movements and resulting stimulation, the direct or indirect manipulation of an object, and the presence of a background environment. Participants were asked to describe their impressions by rating their experiences in terms of seven possible "scenarios". These scenarios were carefully chosen to distinguish the degree to which the participants attributed their sensations to a distal cause. Participants rated the scenarios both before and after they were given the possibility to interrupt the stimulation with an obstacle. We were interested in several questions. Did participants extract laws of co-variation between their movements and resulting stimulation? Did they deduce the existence of a perceptual space originating from this coupling? Did they individuate objects that caused the sensations? Whatever the experimental conditions, participants were able to establish that there was a link between their movements and the resulting auditory stimulation. Detection of the existence of a coupling was more frequent than the inferences of distal space and object.

Figures

Figure 1. Schema of the visual-to-auditory substitution device Vibe

Figure 3. Means over the experimental conditions 1- Lever, 2- Distant object, 3- Lever and background and 4- Object, of the scores attributed to the different scenarios for the first session (filled circles) and the second session (empty boxes). The means are taken over all participants.

Figure 4. Extracted index for the components coupling, space and object for the first session (empty circles) and the second session (filled boxes). The means are taken over all subjects.

Table II. Weights attributed to the components C, O and S for each scenario

Full text

HAL Id: hal-00173591
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00173591v2
Submitted on 16 Oct 2008
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entic research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diusion de documents
scientiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
There is something out there: distal attribution in
sensory substitution, twenty years later.
Malika Auvray, Sylvain Hanneton, Charles Lenay, Kevin O’Regan
To cite this version:
Malika Auvray, Sylvain Hanneton, Charles Lenay, Kevin O’Regan. There is something out there:
distal attribution in sensory substitution, twenty years later.. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience,
World Scientic Publishing, 2005, 4 (4), pp.505-21. �hal-00173591v2�

Reprint of the submitted version of Auvray M, Hanneton S, Lenay C, O'Regan K. There is something out there: Distal
attribution in sensory substitution, twenty years later. J Integr Neurosci. 2005 Dec;4(4):505-21.
There is something out there:
Distal attribution in sensory substitution,
twenty years later
MALIKA AUVRAY
1
, SYLVAIN HANNETON
2
, CHARLES LENAY
3
and KEVIN O’REGAN
4
1
Laboratoire de Psychologie Expérimentale, CNRS UMR 8581, Université Paris 5 René Descartes, 71 Avenue
Edouard Vaillant, 92774 Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
2
Laboratoire Neurophysique et Physiologie du Système Moteur, CNRS UMR 8119 & UFR STAPS, Université
Paris 5 René Descartes, UFR Biomédicale des Saints Pères. 45 rue des Saints Pères. 75270 Paris CEDEX 06
France.
3
COSTECH, Université de Technologie de Compiègne, Centre Benjamin Franklin, BP 60203 Compiègne,
France
4
Laboratoire de Psychologie Expérimentale, CNRS UMR 8581, Université Paris 5 René Descartes, 71 Avenue
Edouard Vaillant, 92774 Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Corresponding author:
Malika Auvray
Address: Laboratoire de Psychologie Expérimentale,
71 Avenue Edouard Vaillant - 92774 Boulogne-Billancourt, France
Tel: 00 33 6 60 48 14 44 - Fax: 00 33 1 55 20 58 54
e-mail: malika.auvray@univ-paris5.fr. Web: http://www.malika-auvray.com
Preprint of an article submitted for consideration in Journal of Integrative Neuroscience © 2005 [copyright World Scientific Publishing
Company] [http://www.worldscinet.com/jin/jin.shtml]
1
SUBMITTED
VERSION !

Reprint of the submitted version of Auvray M, Hanneton S, Lenay C, O'Regan K. There is something out there: Distal
attribution in sensory substitution, twenty years later. J Integr Neurosci. 2005 Dec;4(4):505-21.
Abstract
Sensory substitution constitutes an interesting domain of study to consider the philosopher’s
classical question of distal attribution: how we can distinguish between a sensation and the perception
of an object that causes this sensation. We tested the hypothesis that distal attribution is constituted of
three distinct components: the existence of a coupling between subjects’ movements and stimulation,
the presence of an object and the existence of a perceptual space. We propose to try to understand and
systemize the different conditions that are necessary for a distal attribution to occur.
We equipped sixty naïve and uninformed participants with a visual-to-auditory substitution
device, without any information about it. This device converts the video stream produced by a head-
mounted camera into a sound stream. We investigated several experimental conditions: the existence
or not of a correlation between movements and resulting stimulation, the direct or indirect (with a
handle) manipulation of an object, and the presence of a background environment. Participants were
asked to describe their impressions by rating their experiences in terms of seven possible "scenarios".
These scenarios were carefully chosen to distinguish the degree to which the participants attributed
their sensations to a distal cause. Participants rated the scenarios both before and after they were given
the possibility to interrupt the stimulation with an obstacle. Did participants extract laws of co-
variation between their movements and resulting stimulation? Did they deduce the existence of a
perceptual space originating from this coupling? Did they individuate objects that caused the
sensations?
The results showed that, whatever the experimental conditions, participants were able to
establish that there was a link between their movements and the resulting auditory stimulation.
Detection of the existence of a coupling was more frequent than the inferences of distal space and
object.
Key words: Sensory substitution, distal attribution, space, object, objecthood, sensory-motor
theory, sensory-motor coupling
2

Reprint of the submitted version of Auvray M, Hanneton S, Lenay C, O'Regan K. There is something out there: Distal
attribution in sensory substitution, twenty years later. J Integr Neurosci. 2005 Dec;4(4):505-21.
1- Introduction
Distal attribution can be defined as the ability to attribute the cause of our proximal
sensory stimulation to an exterior and distinct object. The question of distal attribution is
widely studied in philosophy, but it has not been extensively addressed in experimental
psychology. Sensory substitution systems give us the opportunity to study this question. These
systems allow information coming from an artificial receptor to be processed by a sensory
organ which is unusual for this information source. Sensory substitution systems for example
allow visual stimulation to be converted in such a way that it can be processed by the auditory
or somaesthetic systems. This perceptual coupling is new for subjects and it provides a way to
study how users can integrate and achieve the mastery of a new perceptual space and how
they can attain the notion of the existence of an exterior and distant object in this new
perceptual space.
Several studies have shown that after training, proximal stimulation produced by
sensory substitution devices can be attributed to exterior and distant causes. For instance, with
the Tactile Vision Substitution System (TVSS) developed by Bach-y-Rita, users no longer feel
the stimulation on their skin where it occurs but directly attribute the cause of the stimulation
to a distant object (Bach-y-Rita, 1972, White et al, 1970). Similar observations have been
made with visual-to-auditory substitution devices, for instance with the device The Voice
developed by Meijer (Meijer, 1992). One user relates that at the beginning she just heard
sounds without attributing any meaning to them (as proximal stimulation). However, after
training, she was able to distinguish sounds represented by the device from other sounds, and
via these sounds she perceived objects as located in a three dimensional space (as distal
3

Reprint of the submitted version of Auvray M, Hanneton S, Lenay C, O'Regan K. There is something out there: Distal
attribution in sensory substitution, twenty years later. J Integr Neurosci. 2005 Dec;4(4):505-21.
perception). We underline that these observations can be made with many technical devices.
For example, a blind person using a cane experiences the stimulation at the end of the cane
rather than in the hand, where it occurs.
However, in all these experiments users are generally informed about the functioning of
the device and extensively trained to use it. Furthermore, the localization or recognition tasks
that have been used presuppose the existence of a distant object. Users therefore know that a
distant object can be the cause of the variations in sensation. The following question arises:
can distal attribution occur when observers do not have any prior knowledge of the link
between their actions with the device and the resulting variation in stimulation? To answer
this question, Epstein, Hughes, Schneider and Bach-y-Rita (1986) equipped naïve blindfolded
participants with a visual-to-tactile substitution device. The patterns of stimulation that
participants received were created by converting a video image obtained from a head-
mounted camera into vibratory stimulation delivered on one finger (a modified Optacon).
However, no information about the functioning of the device was provided to the participants.
They were only told that stimulation would be delivered by a device new to them. Results
were based on subjective reports of participants' experiences, in which they rated the
feasibility of different scenarios describing hypotheses corresponding to the experimental
situation they experienced. Results showed that, even if participants become aware of the link
between their movements and variations of vibratory stimulation, they never develop the
hypothesis of distal attribution.
However, results obtained in the Epstein et al. experiments have to be considered
carefully.
Each scenario they used proposed a different hypothetical device that the participant
4

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What contributions have the authors mentioned in the paper "There is something out there: distal attribution in sensory substitution, twenty years later" ?

The authors propose to try to understand and systemize the different conditions that are necessary for a distal attribution to occur. The authors investigated several experimental conditions: the existence or not of a correlation between movements and resulting stimulation, the direct or indirect ( with a handle ) manipulation of an object, and the presence of a background environment. 

Q2. What is the third result of the experiments?

The third result of their experiments is that the notions of space and object aresignificantly reinforced after the participant experiences the possibility of interrupting the link between himself and the object. 

Q3. What did the participants learn from the experience with the device?

From their experience with the device, participants extracted laws of co-variation between their movements and the resulting auditory stimulation. 

Q4. What is the mean value of the extracted index for the component "Coupling"?

The mean value of the extracted index measuring the component "coupling" is negativefor the two control conditions and is highly positive for the others. 

Q5. What is the main result of the experiments?

The first main result of their experiments is that participants who are placed inexperimental conditions where there is a link between their movements and the resulting auditory stimulation actually infer the existence of a coupling. 

Q6. How many participants were equipped with a sensory-to-auditory substitution device?

The authors equipped sixty naïve and uninformed participants with a visual-to-auditory substitutiondevice, without any information about it. 

Q7. What are the weights of the scenarios containing the considered component?

The weights of the scenarios containing the considered component arepositive; the weights of the scenarios that do not contain the considered component are negative. 

Q8. What is the definition of a space of displacements?

There is a space of displacements when the same actions can give rise to different sensations, and when different actions can give rise to the same sensation, which then can be named position of an object.