Examining the size–weight illusion with visuo-haptic conflict in immersive virtual reality

When we experience our environment, we do so by combining sensory inputs with expectations derived from our prior knowledge, which can lead to surprising perceptual effects such as small objects feeling heavier than equally weighted large objects (the size–weight illusion (SWI)). Interestingly, there is evidence that the way in which the volume of an object is experienced can affect the strength of the illusion, with a SWI induced by exclusively haptic volume cues feeling stronger than a SWI induced with only visual volume cues. Furthermore, visual cues appear to add nothing over and above haptic size cues in terms of the strength of the induced weight illusion–findings which are difficult to reconcile with work using cue-conflict paradigms where visual cues usually dominate haptic cues. Here, virtual reality was used to place these senses in conflict with one another. Participants (N = 22) judged the heaviness of identically weighted cylinders across three conditions: (1) objects appeared different sizes but were physically the same size, (2) objects were physically different sizes but appeared to be the same size, or (3) objects which looked and felt different sizes from one another. Consistent with prior work, haptic size cues induced a larger SWI than that induced by visual size differences. In contrast to prior work, however, congruent vision and haptic size cues yielded a larger still SWI. These findings not only add to our understanding of how different modalities combine to influence our hedonic perception but also showcase how virtual reality can develop novel cue-conflict paradigms.

[1]  Jennifer L. Milne,et al.  The Size-Weight Illusion Induced Through Human Echolocation , 2015, Psychological science.

[2]  J. Flanagan,et al.  Independence of perceptual and sensorimotor predictions in the size–weight illusion , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[3]  Jonathan Balzer,et al.  Smaller = Denser, and the Brain Knows It: Natural Statistics of Object Density Shape Weight Expectations , 2015, PloS one.

[4]  H. Ross.  When is a Weight not Illusory? , 1969, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  J. Zwislocki,et al.  Absolute scaling of sensory magnitudes: A validation , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  M. Goodale,et al.  The role of vision in detecting and correcting fingertip force errors during object lifting. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[7]  Frank P. Schulte,et al.  Seeing Size and Feeling Weight: The Size-Weight Illusion in Natural and Virtual Reality , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[8]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Two Eyes for an Eye: The Neuroscience of Force Escalation , 2003, Science.

[9]  J. Hermsdörfer,et al.  The impact of unilateral brain damage on weight perception, sensorimotor anticipation, and fingertip force adaptation , 2015, Vision Research.

[10]  Marc O. Ernst,et al.  A Bayesian view on multimodal cue integration , 2006 .

[11]  H. P. Bowditch,et al.  A Comparison of Sight and Touch , 1882, The Journal of physiology.

[12]  M T Turvey,et al.  Weight perception and the haptic size-weight illusion are functions of the inertia tensor. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  M. Shiffrar,et al.  Human Body Perception From The Inside Out , 2005 .

[14]  H. Pick,et al.  A developmental and analytic study of the size-weight illusion. , 1967, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[15]  I ROCK,et al.  Vision and Touch: An Experimentally Created Conflict between the Two Senses , 1964, Science.

[16]  M. Goodale,et al.  The material–weight illusion induced by expectations alone , 2011, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[17]  Jonathan S. Cant,et al.  Living in a material world: how visual cues to material properties affect the way that we lift objects and perceive their weight. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  Choongwon Jeong,et al.  Proximate mechanisms of detecting nut properties in a wild population of Mexican Jays (Aphelocoma ultramarina) , 2015, Journal of Ornithology.

[19]  S. Lederman,et al.  The material-weight illusion revisited , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  A. Charpentier.  Experimental study of some aspects of weight perception , 1891 .

[21]  R. Johansson,et al.  Experience Can Change Distinct Size-Weight Priors Engaged in Lifting Objects and Judging their Weights , 2008, Current Biology.

[22]  D. Westwood,et al.  Opposite perceptual and sensorimotor responses to a size-weight illusion. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[23]  M. Goodale,et al.  Lifting without Seeing: The Role of Vision in Perceiving and Acting upon the Size Weight Illusion , 2010, PloS one.

[24]  N. Anderson.  Averaging model applied to the size-weight illusion , 1970 .

[25]  Wei Ji Ma,et al.  The Size-Weight Illusion is not anti-Bayesian after all: a unifying Bayesian account , 2016, PeerJ.

[26]  Gavin Buckingham,et al.  Tactile gating in a reaching and grasping task , 2014, Physiological reports.

[27]  G. Buckingham,et al.  The weight of expectation: Implicit, rather than explicit, prior expectations drive the size–weight illusion , 2016, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[28]  Jacqueline C. Snow,et al.  Priming tool actions: Are real objects more effective primes than pictures? , 2015, Experimental Brain Research.

[29]  S. Lederman,et al.  The role of haptic versus visual volume cues in the size-weight illusion , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[30]  J. Hermsdörfer,et al.  Size–weight illusion and anticipatory grip force scaling following unilateral cortical brain lesion , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[31]  Mark A. Symmons,et al.  Haptic and visual size judgements in virtual and real environments , 2005, First Joint Eurohaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. World Haptics Conference.

[32]  J. Gibson.  Observations on active touch. , 1962, Psychological review.

[33]  S. C. Masin,et al.  Experimental demonstration of the sensory basis of the size-weight illusion , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  Human readiness to throw: the size–weight illusion is not an illusion when picking the best objects to throw ☆ , 2011 .

[35]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  Felt heaviness is used to perceive the affordance for throwing but rotational inertia does not affect either , 2012, Experimental Brain Research.

[36]  C. M. Davis,et al.  Lifting movements in the size-weight illusion , 1976 .

[37]  J. Gibson.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[38]  Alessandro Soranzo,et al.  The Use of Virtual Reality in Psychology: A Case Study in Visual Perception , 2015, Comput. Math. Methods Medicine.

[39]  Darren R. Reid,et al.  How Prior Expectations Influence Older Adults' Perception and Action During Object Interaction. , 2018, Multisensory research.

[40]  Jacqueline C. Snow,et al.  Real-world objects are more memorable than photographs of objects , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[41]  Maurice A Smith,et al.  Bayesian and "anti-Bayesian" biases in sensory integration for action and perception in the size-weight illusion. , 2010, Journal of neurophysiology.

[42]  K. Drewing,et al.  A mass-density model can account for the size-weight illusion , 2018, PloS one.

[43]  G. Buckingham.  Getting a grip on heaviness perception: a review of weight illusions and their probable causes , 2014, Experimental Brain Research.

[44]  M. Ernst,et al.  Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion , 2002, Nature.