About:
Museums visitors touch artworks they should not. We touch our phone on the table, even though we don’t need it. Why do we want to touch objects that we can clearly see? What is it that touch provides that vision does not?
Keywords: Touch, Haptic, Metacognition, Over-confidence
Background:
Our new hypothesis here is that we are more confident after touching rather than seeing an object, even when we are not de facto more precise or accurate. We call this a ‘Saint Thomas effect’, in reference to Thomas who doubted the return of Christ until he touched him.
At this stage we are:
Testing whether and how this confidence bias shows across a variety of tasks
Examining how our account explains the idea, found in philosophy and in common sense, that touch is ‘more objective’ than the other senses
Extending these findings to clinical studies (compulsive fact-checking by touch) and technology (is pressing buttons is more satisfying than simply selecting on a screen) New Paragraph
Our latest research updates:
This is a post into all categories
Please create your first post in which you describe the current state of your project. Then assign the corresponding project category to your post. (Right sidebar -> document -> categories) Your post will automatically be displayed under your selected project category.
Read MoreInterested? Find out more:
Our publications:
Fairhurst, M. T., Travers, E., Hayward, V., & Deroy, O. (2018). Confidence is higher in touch than in vision in cases of perceptual ambiguity. Nature Scientific reports, 8(1), 15604.
Deroy, O., & Fairhurst, M. (2019). Spatial Certainty. In Chen, Deroy & Spence (eds). Spatial Senses: Philosophy of Perception in an Age of Science. London : Routledge.
A discussion of our St Thomas effect in Aeon and The Week
Internships projects related to this project.
Team
Project Lead
Collaborator
Collaborator