Literature DB >> 27743260

Contribution of surface material and size to the expected versus the perceived weight of objects.

Michele Vicovaro1, Luigi Burigana2.   

Abstract

Because the perceived weight of objects may be affected by various nonweight properties, such as their size and the density of their surface material, relative weight is sometimes misperceived (the size-weight illusion and the material-weight illusion, respectively). A widely accepted explanation for weight illusions is provided by the so-called expectation model, according to which the perceived weight stems from the contrast between the actual and expected weights. In the present study, we varied both the surface material and the size of stimuli, while keeping constant their physical weights. In Experiment 1, the participants lifted the stimuli by grasping them on opposite sides, whereas in Experiment 2 they lifted them by using a string that was attached to their top surface. We used a variant of the random conjoint measurement paradigm to obtain subjective interval scales of the contributions of surface material and size to the expected and the perceived weight of the stimuli. Inconsistently with the predictions from the expectation model, we found, in both experiments, that the surface material contributed more than the size to the expected weight, whereas the size contributed more than the surface material to the perceived weight. The results support the hypothesis that perceived weight may depend on implicit, rather than explicit, weight expectations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Conjoint measurement; Haptics; Information integration; Material–weight illusion; Model selection; Multisensory processing; Size–weight illusion; Weight perception

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27743260     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-016-1212-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  6 in total

1.  Evidence of SQUARC and distance effects in a weight comparison task.

Authors:  Mario Dalmaso; Michele Vicovaro
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2019-02-05

2.  A mass-density model can account for the size-weight illusion.

Authors:  Christian Wolf; Wouter M Bergmann Tiest; Knut Drewing
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  The impact of using an upper-limb prosthesis on the perception of real and illusory weight differences.

Authors:  Gavin Buckingham; Johnny Parr; Greg Wood; Samuel Vine; Pan Dimitriou; Sarah Day
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-08

4.  Influence of visually perceived shape and brightness on perceived size, expected weight, and perceived weight of 3D objects.

Authors:  Michele Vicovaro; Katia Ruta; Giulio Vidotto
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Examining Whether Semantic Cues Can Affect Felt Heaviness When Lifting Novel Objects.

Authors:  Caitlin Elisabeth Naylor; T J Power; Gavin Buckingham
Journal:  J Cogn       Date:  2020-01-31

6.  Size, weight, and expectations.

Authors:  Jeroen B J Smeets; Kim Vos; Emma Abbink; Myrthe Plaisier
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2022-03-30       Impact factor: 1.695

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.