Identifying an Inanimate Object Through All Five Senses

Introduction and Thesis

In general, we tend to rely most on our visual senses to identify unfamiliar objects. However, the other four senses are equally important, which is particularly evident in individuals who have lost their vision. Modern diagnostic brain imaging studies have actually confirmed what has often been described anecdotally: namely, that the loss of eyesight results in the gradual increase in the relative abilities of the remaining senses. While this paper describes an inanimate object using sight as well as the other four senses, the goal is to demonstrate that it is possible to identify the object through those four non-visual senses before any visual data is introduced.

Touch: Shape, Texture, and Temperature

The first impression gathered through physical touch suggests that the object is a flat, three-dimensional rectangle whose length is approximately twice its width, with a comparatively smaller depth. A rough estimate of dimensions would be three or four feet in length, two feet in width, and only six inches in depth. The front panel is very smooth to the touch, and from prior experience, it feels as though it is composed of glass.

Gently tapping a fingernail against the panel seems to confirm this impression because it vibrates the way a thin panel of glass might. That vibration also suggests that the glass-like panel is connected to the rest of the object only at its edges, and that most of the panel itself is not in direct physical contact with the body of the object — solid glass and glass panels supported across their entire surface tend to respond much differently to the fingernail tap test. There appears to be a seam between the exterior edges of the glass-like panel where it meets the surface of the rest of the object along its entire perimeter. The seam feels quite small, perhaps a sixteenth of an inch or less.

The glass-like panel feels somewhat cool to the touch, especially in comparison to the flat sides of the object, which feel slightly warm in a manner consistent with what one would expect from an electrically powered piece of electronic equipment that is either powered on or only recently powered off. That conclusion is reinforced by the presence of small patterns of uniform holes and thin lines of depression in the area where the sides of the object meet the rear section.

Sound and Smell: Clues from the Vents

A very faint scent is apparent in the vicinity of those areas, strongly suggesting that they represent heat-dispersal vents, because the odor is of the type consistent with plastics and the silicates commonly used in electronic circuits. Listening closely to the apparent vents reveals no sound emanating from the object; that absence, combined with the apparent lack of any internal heat source, both seem to indicate that the object was powered off only relatively recently.

The sides and rear area of the object feel like hard plastic to the touch. They also respond to the fingernail tap test in the manner expected of hard plastics, producing a higher audible pitch and less vibration and "give" under slight pressure than the glass-like front panel.

Conclusion

The sensory experiment confirmed the initial hypothesis that the use of visual sensory information, though very helpful and more convenient than employing other senses, is not absolutely necessary to identify an object accurately. By combining the sensory data gathered through physical touch, smell, sound, and taste, the experimenter was able to correctly identify the object. Subsequent visual observation confirmed virtually every element of the earlier conclusions made possible by the non-visual senses.