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
 · 
92 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The hand is a reliable and ecologically useful perceptual ruler that can be used to scale the sizes of close, manipulatable objects in the world in a manner similar to the way in which eye height is used to scale the heights of objects on the ground plane. Certain objects are perceived proportionally to the size of the hand, and as a result, changes in the relationship between the sizes of objects in the world and the size of the hand are attributed to changes in object size rather than hand size. To illustrate this notion, we provide evidence from several experiments showing that people perceive their dominant hand as less magnified than other body parts or objects when these items are subjected to the same degree of magnification. These findings suggest that the hand is perceived as having a more constant size and, consequently, can serve as a reliable metric with which to measure objects of commensurate size.
    Psychological Science 09/2014; 25(11). DOI:10.1177/0956797614548875 · 4.43 Impact Factor
  • [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; 76(5). DOI:10.3758/s13414-014-0664-9 · 1.97 Impact Factor
    This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format
  • Source
    PSYCHOLOGIA 01/2014; 57(2):102. DOI:10.2117/psysoc.2014.102 · 0.09 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
40 Downloads
Available from
Jul 4, 2014