It sounds like they didn't actually test Molyneux's question at all, or prove anything about perception. It sounds more like an additional data point to nudge our understanding of the brain toward greater plasticity.
Molyneux's question: Could a man, blind since birth who can tell the difference in shapes only by feel, given suddenly the ability to see be able to distinguish by sight those shapes?
Pawan Sinha's test: They took five people who had been blind since birth, performed the surgery to restore the sight, and performed the test which indicated that they could connect the tactile experience with a visual one no better than chance.
It's a very small sample size, to be sure, but to claim "they didn't actually test Molyneux's question at all"? Not sure which part of the article you missed.
The article says the subjects were given similarly-shaped objects, not a sphere and a cube (as noted by comments on the article). This gives the impression that the question whether very rough differences in shape, e.g. sphere vs. cube, can be distinguished immediately after sight is restored is still unanswered.
I was going to say the same thing. I'd really like to see what objects exactly they used.
I have a variation on the original question. Suppose someone blind has never touched a cube. However, he knows that a cube is an object with 6 sides of equal dimensions and 8 corners. Then his blindness is suddenly cured. If he sees a cube would he be able to associate it with the description of a cube that's already in his head?
