Literature DB >> 30852440

The visual cues that drive the self-assessment of body size: Dissociation between fixation patterns and the key areas of the body for accurate judgement.

Kamila R Irvine1, Kristofor McCarty1, Thomas V Pollet1, Katri K Cornelissen1, Martin J Tovée2, Piers L Cornelissen3.   

Abstract

A modified version of the bubbles masking paradigm was used in three experiments to determine the key areas of the body that are used in self-estimates of body size. In this paradigm, parts of the stimuli are revealed by several randomly allocated Gaussian "windows" forcing judgements to be made based on this partial information. Over multiple trials, all potential cues are sampled, and the effectiveness of each window at predicting the judgement is determined. The modified bubbles strategy emphasises the distinction between central versus edge cues and localises the visual features used in judging one's own body size. In addition, eye-movements were measured in conjunction with the bubbles paradigm and the results mapped onto a common reference space. This shows that although observers fixate centrally on the torso, they are actually directing their visual attention to the edges of the torso to gauge body width as an index of body size. The central fixations are simply the most efficient way of positioning the eye to make this estimation. Inaccurate observers are less precise in their central fixations and do not evenly allocate their attention to both sides of the torso's edge, illustrating the importance of efficiently sampling the key information.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  BMI; Body size estimation; Bubbles masking technique; Eye-movements; Self-estimates; Visual cues

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30852440     DOI: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.02.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Body Image        ISSN: 1740-1445


  6 in total

1.  Two components of body-image disturbance are differentially associated with distinct eating disorder characteristics in healthy young women.

Authors:  Yumi Hamamoto; Shinsuke Suzuki; Motoaki Sugiura
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-12       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  How Does Variation in the Body Composition of Both Stimuli and Participant Modulate Self-Estimates of Men's Body Size?

Authors:  Vicki Groves; Piers Cornelissen; Kristofor McCarty; Sophie Mohamed; Nadia Maalin; Martin James Tovée; Katri Cornelissen
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2019-10-09       Impact factor: 4.157

3.  The ageing body: contributing attitudinal factors towards perceptual body size estimates in younger and middle-aged women.

Authors:  Ashleigh M Bellard; Piers L Cornelissen; Emanuel Mian; Valentina Cazzato
Journal:  Arch Womens Ment Health       Date:  2020-06-19       Impact factor: 3.633

4.  Drawings or 3D models: Do illustration methods matter when assessing perceived body size and body dissatisfaction?

Authors:  Cynthia Sob; Luana Giacone; Kaspar Staub; Nicole Bender; Michael Siegrist; Christina Hartmann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-21       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Use of a real-life practical context changes the relationship between implicit body representations and real body measurements.

Authors:  Lize De Coster; Pablo Sánchez-Herrero; Jorge López-Moreno; Ana Tajadura-Jiménez
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Perceived match between own and observed models' bodies: influence of face, viewpoints, and body size.

Authors:  Lize De Coster; Pablo Sánchez-Herrero; Carlos Aliaga; Miguel A Otaduy; Jorge López-Moreno; Ana Tajadura-Jiménez
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-19       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.