Fig. 8: Effect of visual context on perceived tactile characteristics.
Source data are provided as a Source Data file. a Distribution of mean absolute differences between the survey ratings of participants P2, P3, and C1 with (30 trials per participant) and without (30 trials per participant) a visual context, and the survey ratings of the participants with intact somatosensation, across all objects. The survey ratings with and without a visual context were significantly different for participant P3 (p = 0.011, two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, α = 0.025, D = 0.40). b Distribution of mean standard deviations across all survey ratings of participant P2 (6 samples without and 10 samples with visual context), P3 (18 samples without and 17 samples with visual context) and C1 (23 samples without and 18 samples with visual context) with and without an image that they thought best matched the evoked sensation. Median values are displayed as an open black circle and the 25–75% quartiles are displayed as a thick black line. Both P3 (p = 0.018, two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, α = 0.025, D = 0.49) and C1 (p = 0.007−1, D = 0.60) were significantly more consistent in their survey ratings with a visual context, compared to without.
