Size perception by vision and kinesthesia

When two sizes, one perceived by vision and the other by kinesthesia, are apparently equal, the physical relationship between them varies: The sizes may be equal, or the visual size may be larger than the kinesthetic size, or vice versa. In this study, the method of cross-modal matching and the method of magnitude production were used to explore the relationship between apparently equal sizes (5–40 cm) perceived by vision and by kinesthesia. The sizes were linear or circular, and the mode of standard presentation was visual, kinesthetic, or verbal. The size and the direction of the intermodal mismatch varied with the size of the standard. It was also found that an apparent length of movement varied with the direction of movement. In all conditions, the relationship between apparently equal visual and kinesthetic sizes was well approximated by a power function.

[1]  B Jones.  When are vision and kinaesthesis comparable? , 1973, British journal of psychology.

[2]  Joseph Jastrow,et al.  THE PERCEPTION OF SPACE BY DISPARATE SENSES , 1886 .

[3]  J Paillard,et al.  A proprioceptive contribution to the spatial encoding of position cues for ballistic movements. , 1974, Brain research.

[4]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  Subjective scaling of length and area and the matching of length to loudness and brightness. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  Stanley Coren,et al.  Perceptual Phenomena. (Book Reviews: Seeing Is Deceiving. The Psychology of Visual Illusions) , 1978 .

[6]  M. Teghtsoonian,et al.  Two varieties of perceived length , 1970 .

[7]  J. I. Laszlo,et al.  The Size Illusion: Visual and Kinaesthetic Information in Size Perception , 1985, Perception.

[8]  T. Künnapas,et al.  An analysis of the vertical-horizontal illusion. , 1955 .

[9]  S. S. Stevens.  Issues in psychophysical measurement. , 1971 .

[10]  The Size Illusion in Children from Five Years of Age and Adults , 1994, Perception.

[11]  H. Yilmaz.  Perceptual invariance and the psychophysical law , 1967 .

[12]  K M Newell,et al.  Coordinating visual and kinaesthetic memory codes. , 1979, British journal of psychology.

[13]  K. Connolly,et al.  A developmental study of afferent-reafferent integration. , 1970, British journal of psychology.

[14]  M F Cheng,et al.  Tactile-kinesthetic perception of length. , 1968, The American journal of psychology.

[15]  L. Marks.  The Unity of the Senses: Interrelations Among the Modalities , 1978 .

[16]  H N Zelaznik,et al.  The role of vision in repetitive circle drawing. , 1996, Acta psychologica.

[17]  Gertrude Raffel.  Visual and Kinaesthetic Judgments of Length , 1936 .

[18]  S Millar.  The development of visual and kinaesthetic judgment of distance. , 1972, British journal of psychology.

[19]  S. J. Rule.  Subject difference in exponents from circle size, numerousness, and line length , 1969 .

[20]  R. Teghtsoonian.  Logical difficulties in physical correlate theory , 1981, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[21]  M. Teghtsoonian.  THE JUDGMENT OF SIZE. , 1965, The American journal of psychology.

[22]  P. G. Ronco.  An Experimental Quantification of Kinesthetic Sensation: Extent of Arm Movement , 1963 .

[23]  T S Wong,et al.  Dynamic properties of radial and tangential movements as determinants of the haptic horizontal--vertical illusion with an L figure. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  R. Day,et al.  Basis of the horizontal-vertical illusion. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[25]  S. S. Stevens.  On the psychophysical law. , 1957, Psychological review.

[26]  E. B. Knauft,et al.  The accuracy of positioning reactions as a function of their direction and extent. , 1948, The American journal of psychology.