Literature DB >> 35294471

Self-selected interval judgments compared to point judgments: A weight judgment experiment in the presence of the size-weight illusion.

Nichel Gonzalez1, Ola Svenson1,2, Magnus Ekström3,4, Bengt Kriström5, Mats E Nilsson1.   

Abstract

Measurements of human attitudes and perceptions have traditionally used numerical point judgments. In the present study, we compared conventional point estimates of weight with an interval judgment method. Participants were allowed to make step by step judgments, successively converging towards their best estimate. Participants estimated, in grams, the weight of differently sized boxes, estimates thus susceptible to the size-weight illusion. The illusion makes the smaller of two objects of the same weight, differing only in size, to be perceived as heavier. The self-selected interval method entails participants judging a highest and lowest reasonable value for the true weight. This is followed by a splitting procedure, consecutive choices of selecting the upper or lower half of the interval the individual estimates most likely to include the true value. Compared to point estimates, interval midpoints showed less variability and reduced the size-weight illusion, but only to a limited extent. Accuracy improvements from the interval method were limited, but the between participant variation suggests that the method has merit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35294471      PMCID: PMC8926213          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264830

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  11 in total

1.  Independence of perceptual and sensorimotor predictions in the size-weight illusion.

Authors:  J R Flanagan; M A Beltzner
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Opposite perceptual and sensorimotor responses to a size-weight illusion.

Authors:  Mathew S Grandy; David A Westwood
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-04-26       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 3.  A meta-analysis of the size-weight and material-weight illusions.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Saccone; Oriane Landry; Philippe A Chouinard
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-08

4.  Charpentier's papers of 1886 and 1891 on weight perception and the size-weight illusion.

Authors:  Serge Nicolas; Helen E Ross; David J Murray
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  2012-08

5.  Properties of the size-weight illusion as shown by lines of subjective equality.

Authors:  Michele Vicovaro; Luigi Burigana
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2014-03-31

6.  Why the "stimulus-error" did not go away.

Authors:  M Chirimuuta
Journal:  Stud Hist Philos Sci       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 1.429

7.  The Size-Weight Illusion is not anti-Bayesian after all: a unifying Bayesian account.

Authors:  Megan A K Peters; Wei Ji Ma; Ladan Shams
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 2.984

8.  Low-level sensory processes play a more crucial role than high-level cognitive ones in the size-weight illusion.

Authors:  Cody G Freeman; Elizabeth J Saccone; Philippe A Chouinard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Mass is all that matters in the size-weight illusion.

Authors:  Myrthe A Plaisier; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-09       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Smaller = denser, and the brain knows it: natural statistics of object density shape weight expectations.

Authors:  Megan A K Peters; Jonathan Balzer; Ladan Shams
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.