Article

Illusory shrinkage and growth: body-based rescaling affects the perception of size.

Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, 102 Gilmer Hall, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
Psychological Science (Impact Factor: 4.43). 09/2010; 21(9):1318-25. DOI: 10.1177/0956797610380700
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The notion that apparent sizes are perceived relative to the size of one's body is supported through the discovery of a new visual illusion. When graspable objects are magnified by magnifying goggles, they appear to shrink back to near-normal size when one's hand (also magnified) is placed next to them. When objects are "minified" by minifying goggles, the opposite occurs. The rescaling effect also occurred when participants who were trained in tool use viewed the tool next to the objects. However, this change in apparent size does not occur when familiar objects or someone else's hand is placed next to the magnified or minified object. Presumably, objects' apparent sizes shift closer to their actual sizes when one's hand is viewed because objects' sizes relative to the hand are the same with or without the goggles. These findings highlight the role of body scaling in size perception.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
66 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An illusory sensation of ownership over a surrogate limb or whole body can be induced through specific forms of multisensory stimulation, such as synchronous visuotactile tapping on the hidden real and visible rubber hand in the rubber hand illusion. Such methods have been used to induce ownership over a manikin and a virtual body that substitute the real body, as seen from first-person perspective, through a head-mounted display. However, the perceptual and behavioral consequences of such transformed body ownership have hardly been explored. In Exp. 1, immersive virtual reality was used to embody 30 adults as a 4-y-old child (condition C), and as an adult body scaled to the same height as the child (condition A), experienced from the first-person perspective, and with virtual and real body movements synchronized. The result was a strong body-ownership illusion equally for C and A. Moreover there was an overestimation of the sizes of objects compared with a nonembodied baseline, which was significantly greater for C compared with A. An implicit association test showed that C resulted in significantly faster reaction times for the classification of self with child-like compared with adult-like attributes. Exp. 2 with an additional 16 participants extinguished the ownership illusion by using visuomotor asynchrony, with all else equal. The size-estimation and implicit association test differences between C and A were also extinguished. We conclude that there are perceptual and probably behavioral correlates of body-ownership illusions that occur as a function of the type of body in which embodiment occurs.
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 07/2013; · 9.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Both the action-specific perception account and the ecological approach to perception-action emphasize the role of action in perception. However, the action-specific perception account demonstrates that different percepts are possible depending on the perceiver's ability to act, even when the same optical information is available. These findings challenge one of the fundamental claims of the ecological approach-that perception is direct-by suggesting that perception is mediated by internal processes. Here, we sought to resolve this apparent discrepancy. We contend that perception is based on the controlled detection of the information available in a global array that includes higher-order patterns defined across interoceptive and exteroceptive stimulus arrays. These higher-order patterns specify the environment in relation to the perceiver, so direct sensitivity to them would be consistent with the ecological claims that perception of the environment is direct and animal-specific. In addition, the action-specific approach provides further evidence for the theory of affordances, by demonstrating that even seemingly abstract properties of the environment, such as distance and size, are ultimately perceived in terms of an agent's action capabilities.
    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 03/2014; · 2.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Size perception is most often explained by a combination of cues derived from the visual system. However, this traditional cue approach neglects the role of the observer's body beyond mere visual comparison. In a previous study, we used a full-body illusion to show that objects appear larger and farther away when participants experience a small artificial body as their own and that objects appear smaller and closer when they assume ownership of a large artificial body ("Barbie-doll illusion"; van der Hoort, Guterstam, & Ehrsson, PLoS ONE, 6(5), e20195, 2011). The first aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that this own-body-size effect is distinct from the role of the seen body as a direct familiar-size cue. To this end, we developed a novel setup that allowed for occlusion of the artificial body during the presentation of test objects. Our results demonstrate that the feeling of ownership of an artificial body can alter the perceived sizes of objects without the need for a visible body. Second, we demonstrate that fixation shifts do not contribute to the own-body-size effect. Third, we show that the effect exists in both peri-personal space and distant extra-personal space. Finally, through a meta-analysis, we demonstrate that the own-body-size effect is independent of and adds to the classical visual familiar-size cue effect. Our results suggest that, by changing body size, the entire spatial layout rescales and new objects are now perceived according to this rescaling, without the need to see the body.
    Attention Perception & Psychophysics 05/2014; · 1.97 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
5 Downloads
Available from
Jul 4, 2014