ArticleBMC biology2025
The thighs have it: evidence for the importance of lower body regions in female body size judgments.
Article in BMC biology, 2025. 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.
- The thighs have it: evidence for the importance of lower body regions in female body size judgments.BMC biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigated the body features underpinning accurate size judgments of female bodies, and whether judgment accuracy varies with body size. Previous research indicates several body features can influence size judgments; however, there is uncertainty around which specific parts are important, if those vary with size, and whether body perception involves holistic processing (i.e., the whole body) or relies on specific cues (i.e., certain body parts). To examine these questions, we used the bodyline task, which measures two underlying sources of perceptual error in body size judgments: regression to the mean and serial dependence.
resultsIn Experiment 1 (N = 99), we compared judgments of whole bodies to those made viewing the top-half or bottom-half only. Viewing the bottom-half only produced judgments as accurate as those for the whole body, suggesting holistic processing of the whole body is not required for body size judgments. Experiment 2 (N = 116) built on that result by comparing judgments when only the inner or outer thigh region were visible, compared to the whole body. Both isolated thigh regions led to significantly poorer accuracy in judgments compared to whole-body stimuli, indicating that accurate size judgments require more body features than those alone.
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that accurate judgment of female body size does not require holistic processing but does involve integration of multiple features within the lower body region. These results have implications for understanding the perceptual processes involved in body size estimation with potential for broader considerations of body image disorders.
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.