ArticleExperimental brain research2018
On the response function and range dependence of manual estimation.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proprioceptive judgements made with the hand and the jaw: two distinct but functionally related body parts.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The influence of body orientation on length judgements.Perception · 2025Article
- Familiar size affects perception differently in virtual reality and the real world.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Multiple distance cues do not prevent systematic biases in reach to grasp movements.Psychological research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Manual estimates without vision of the hand are thought to constitute a form of cross-modal matching between stimulus size and finger opening. However, few investigations have systematically looked at how manual estimates relate a perceived size to the response across different ranges of stimuli. In two experiments (N = 18 and N = 14), we sought to map out the response properties for (1) manual estimates of visually presented stimuli as well as (2) visual estimates of proprioceptive stimuli, and to test whether these properties depend on the range of stimuli. We also looked at whether scalar variability is present in manual estimates, as predicted by Weber's Law for perceptual tasks. We found that manual estimates scale linearly and with a slope of close to 1 with object sizes up to 90 mm, before participants' hand size limited their responses. In contrast, we found a shallower response slope of about 0.7 when participants performed the inverse task, adjusting the size of a visual object to match a not actively chosen, induced finger opening. Our results were mixed with regards to scalar variability in large objects. We saw some indication of a plateau, but no evidence for an effect of mechanical constraints in the range studied (up to 90 mm). Participants also showed a clear tendency to overestimate small differences when a set of objects differed little in size, but not when stimulus differences were more pronounced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29502246What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.