SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2019
A meta-analysis of the size-weight and material-weight illusions.
Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The size-weight illusion and beyond: A new model of perceived weight.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Comparing object lifting kinematics and the size-weight illusion between physical reality and virtual reality.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Do kea parrots infer the weight of objects from their movement in a breeze?Biology letters · 2024Article
- New evidence for the sensorimotor mismatch theory of weight perception and the size-weight illusion.Experimental brain research · 2024Article
- Self-selected interval judgments compared to point judgments: A weight judgment experiment in the presence of the size-weight illusion.PloS one · 2022Article
- Examining Whether Semantic Cues Can Affect Felt Heaviness When Lifting Novel Objects.Journal of cognition · 2020Article
- Article
- Low-level sensory processes play a more crucial role than high-level cognitive ones in the size-weight illusion.PloS one · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current study comprises the first systematic meta-analysis of weight illusions. We obtained descriptive data from studies in which subjective heaviness estimates were made for pairs or groups of objects that had the same mass and different volumes (size-weight illusion; SWI) or different apparent material properties (material-weight illusion; MWI). Using these data, we calculated mean effect sizes to represent illusion strength. Other study details, including stimulus mass, volume, density, and degree of visual and somatosensory access to the stimuli were also recorded to quantify the contribution of these variables to effect sizes for the SWI. The results indicate that the SWI has a larger mean effect size than the MWI and that the former is consistent in strength when information about stimulus size is gained through somatosensory channels, regardless of visual access. The SWI is weaker when only the visual system provides size information. Effect sizes for the SWI were larger when there was a greater difference in volume across the stimuli. There was also a positive correlation between SWI strength and the difference in physical density across the different experimental stimuli, even after controlling for volume differences. Together, we argue that these findings provide support for theories of weight illusions that are based on conceptual expectancies as well as those that are based on bottom-up processing of physical density. We further propose that these processes, which have been considered dichotomously in the past, may not be mutually exclusive from each other and could both contribute to our perception of weight when we handle objects in everyday life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31044361What 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.