1. Subjects without any previous experience in a tactile psychophysics task participated in a study of tactile letter recognition employing active and passive touch. In the active task, subjects reached through a curtain and examined embossed letters with horizontal, unidirectional finger strokes. In the passive task, subjects sat with their arms and hands immobilized while a rotating drum stimulator pressed the embossed letters onto the right index finger. The stimulus conditions in the passive task were identical to those used in neurophysiological experiments with monkeys. 2. A survey of 40 naive subjects who were not screened in any way showed a wide range of performance levels. There was no difference between the subjects in the active and passive tasks, either in overall mean percent correct scores, which were 49.0 and 50.7%, respectively or in the percent correct scores for individual letters whose product-moment correlation coefficient was 0.94. The active and passive groups, which contained 25 and 15 members, respectively, had no members in common. 3. Videotapes of the finger movements of eight subjects in the active task showed a characteristic V-shaped velocity profile (velocity vs. lateral position) starting at approximately 100 mm/s at the left-hand edge of the plate containing the embossed letter, decelerating to a minimum when the center of the finger was directly over the letter, and then accelerating away from the letter. The average minimum scanning velocity was 17 mm/s. 4. Scanning velocity had no significant effect on performance in the passive task between 20 and 40 mm/s. An increase to 80 mm/s produced a 16% decline in percent correct identifications. 5. Learning effects were evident across sessions even though subjects were given no feedback or training. The increase in mean percent correct judgments averaged 4% per session, which lasted for approximately 1 h. 6. Data from 64 subjects were pooled for detailed comparison of identification patterns in active and passive touch. The results were analyzed and found to be consistent with the hypothesis that the identification and confusion probabilities are identical in the two modes. We conclude that there is no difference between active and passive touch in form recognition when the stimulus pattern is smaller than a finger pad. 7. Data from all experiments were pooled to produce a single confusion matrix with 324 presentations per letter. The majority of erroneous responses are grouped in a small number of confusion pairs and the majority of those confusion pairs are strongly asymmetric. The probable neural mechanisms of some confusion patterns are discussed.