ArticleFrontiers in psychology2019
Body Size Judgments at 17 ms: Evidence From Perceptual and Attitudinal Body Image Indexes.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- How thin is too thin? Evidence from visual aftereffects in body size estimation.Psychological research · 2026Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence related to temporal control for stimuli presentation of whole-body image is generally associated with attentional bias to ideal thin bodies. Few studies present evidence concerning whole-body stimuli recognition during fast visual exposure intervals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reaction times for the judgment of different sized body silhouettes presented at 17 ms in a non-clinical sample. Thirty-one participants were divided in attitudinal and perceptual body image groups based on Figure Rating Scale output and performed two experiments. First experiment assessed perception and the clarity of visual experience for human and non-human body stimuli at 17 ms. A general accuracy of 69.17% was registered with no differences between perceptual and attitudinal body image groups. These results indicated that the way participants perceive their own bodies does not influence the recognition of general visual silhouette stimuli. It was also observed that the clarity of visual experience is positively correlated to stimuli recognition accuracy. In the second experiment participants had to respond in a seven-point Likert scale if the presented image of body silhouettes were bigger, equal or thinner than their own bodies. Trials were divided in two blocks based on spatial rotation, half at 0° and half at 180°. General accuracy for body silhouettes recognition was 41.1%. Greater accuracy recognition for regular positioned stimuli was observed. Attitudinal dimension of body image was not a predictor of differential performance whereas perceptual body image groups recorded contrasting recognition performance. Distorted body image participants presented higher accuracy than undistorted body image participants, with greater accuracy to thinner silhouette figures. Women had significantly higher overall accuracy than men considering both experimental blocks. When comparing the cumulative accuracy curves across experimental trials, an exposure effect was registered only for the first experiment. Results showed that body silhouette stimuli were judged in a fast exposure interval with differential accuracy rates only for perceptual body image groups. Such evidence signals that conscious body image can be associated to implicit detection of visual human body stimuli. Future studies should further test how traditional explicit body image outputs perform within experimental approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.