Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32706795›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

The size-weight illusion comes along with improved weight discrimination.

Christian Wolf, Knut Drewing

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christian WolfAllgemeine Psychologie, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9969-3112
Knut DrewingAllgemeine Psychologie, Justus-Liebig Universität, Giessen, Germany.
Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen · DEUniversity of Münster · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When people judge the weight of two objects of equal mass but different size, they perceive the smaller one as being heavier. Up to date, there is no consensus about the mechanisms which give rise to this size-weight illusion. We recently suggested a model that describes heaviness perception as a weighted average of two sensory heaviness estimates with correlated noise: one estimate derived from mass, the other one derived from density. The density estimate is first derived from mass and size, but at the final perceptual level, perceived heaviness is biased by an object's density, not by its size. Here, we tested the models' prediction that weight discrimination of equal-size objects is better in lifting conditions which are prone to the size-weight illusion as compared to conditions lacking (the essentially uninformative) size information. This is predicted because in these objects density covaries with mass, and according to the model density serves as an additional sensory cue. Participants performed a two-interval forced-choice weight discrimination task. We manipulated the quality of either haptic (Experiment 1) or visual (Experiment 2) size information and measured just-noticeable differences (JNDs). Both for the haptic and the visual illusion, JNDs were lower in lifting conditions in which size information was available. Thus, when heaviness perception can be influenced by an object's density, it is more reliable. This discrimination benefit under conditions that provide the additional information that objects are of equal size is further support for the role of density and the integration of sensory estimates in the size-weight illusion.

Indexed as

Size PerceptionWeight PerceptionAdolescentAdultDifferential ThresholdFemaleHumansIllusionsMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32706795
PMCPMC7380645
OpenAlexW3044268973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.