
Research article
Select search scope: search across all journals or within the current journal

A substantial literature has described anisotropy of tactile distance perception across many body parts. In general, the distance between two touches is felt as larger when the touches are oriented with the mediolateral axis of the limbs than when oriented with the proximodistal axis. In this study, we investigated tactile distance perception across the arm, measuring anisotropy on the upper arm, forearm, and hand dorsum. Participants made forced-choice judgments of which of two pairs of tactile distances felt larger and anisotropy was measured using the method of constant stimuli. Clear anisotropy was found on all three regions of the arm. There was no apparent difference in the magnitude of anisotropy across segments of the arm. We further measured the physical curvature of the arm and show that this cannot account of the perceptual anisotropy observed.
Although faces “in the wild” constantly undergo complicated movements, humans adeptly perceive facial identity and expression. Previous studies, focusing mainly on identity, used photographic caricature to show that distinctive form increases perceived dissimilarity. We tested whether distinctive facial
The size-weight illusion is well-known: if two equally heavy objects differ in size, the large one feels lighter than the small one. Most explanations for this illusion assume that because the information about the relevant attribute (weight itself) is unreliable, information about an irrelevant but correlated attribute (size) is used as well. If such reasoning is correct, one would expect that the illusion can be inverted: if size information is unreliable, weight information will be used to judge size. We explored whether such a weight-size illusion exists by asking participants to lift Styrofoam balls that were coated with glow in the dark paint. The balls (2 sizes, 3 weights) were lifted using a pulley system in complete darkness at 2 distances. Participants reported the size using free magnitude estimation. The visual size information was indeed unreliable: balls that were presented at a 20% larger distance were judged 15% smaller. Nevertheless, the judgments of size were not systematically affected by the 20% weight change (differences < 0.5%). We conclude that because the weight-size illusion does not exist, the mechanism behind the size-weight illusion is specific for judging heaviness.
