Perceiving and acting upon weight illusions in the absence of somatosensory information

Buckingham, Gavin; Michelakakis, Elizabeth Evgenia; Cole, Jonathan

doi:10.1152/jn.00587.2015

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When examined in this light, the reduced SWI for both of our prosthetic groups could highlight the effector-specific nature of this illusion, with the forearm (where the prosthetic is attached) as the main point of information about mass somehow dulling this perceptual effect compared to equivalent lifts with the hand. Indeed, this proposal would be consistent with earlier work showing that the SWI is experienced more robustly in the nondominant hand than the dominant hand, presumably reflecting the dominant hand’s increased perceptual sensitivity over its counterpart (Buckingham et al, 2012 ), and might be a more parsimonious explanation for why a reduction in peripheral input seems to selectively target the experience of the SWI (Buckingham et al, 2016 ). Further work involving targeted impairment of cutaneous feedback and longitudinal observations of how perception evolves when becoming expert with a hand-like tool is necessary to confirm how these cues contribute to the SWI.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Beyond the work outlined above on anorexia nervosa, the other notable special population which has been shown to experience a reduced SWI is patients with schizophrenia (Williams, Ramachandran, Hubbard, Braff, & Light, 2010 )—an effect the authors interpret as being due to this group’s well-established deficit in forward models (Blakemore, Smith, Steel, Johnstone, & Frith, 2000 ; Shergill, Samson, Bays, Frith, & Wolpert, 2005 ). Similar conclusions were also drawn based on the findings of our recent investigation of IW, an individual with peripheral deafferentation (Buckingham, Michelakakis, & Cole, 2016 ), who reported no SWI or predictive lifting behaviour despite an unimpaired experience of a real weight difference (Miall, Ingram, Cole, & Gauthier, 2000 ), presumably reflecting a failure to incorporate prior expectations into his perceptual and motor plans. Alternatively, given that prosthetic hands have no fingertip afferents, it may well be that there is an as-yet-undefined specific role for cutaneous feedback in inducing the SWI, independent from the perception of real weight differences.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of using an upper-limb prosthesis on the perception of real and illusory weight differences

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little is known about how human perception is affected using an upper-limb prosthesis. To shed light on this topic, we investigated how using an upper-limb prosthesis affects individuals’ experience of object weight. First, we examined how a group of upper-limb amputee prosthetic users experienced real mass differences and illusory weight differences in the context of the ‘size–weight’ illusion. Surprisingly, the upper-limb prosthetic users reported a markedly smaller illusion than controls, despite equivalent perceptions of a real mass difference. Next, we replicated this dissociation between real and illusory weight perception in a group of nonamputees who lifted the stimuli with an upper-limb myoelectric prosthetic simulator, again noting that the prosthetic users experienced illusory, but not real, weight differences as being weaker than controls. These findings not only validate the use of a prosthetic simulator as an effective tool for investigating perception and action but also highlight a surprising dissociation between the perception of real and illusory weight differences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

The impact of using an upper-limb prosthesis on the perception of real and illusory weight differences

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The importance of somatosensory feedback in the SWI has garnered further support from the case study of patient IW who suffers from peripheral deafferentation, a condition in which one can no longer process proprioceptive or tactile input [24]. Instead, patient IW must rely on visual feedback about his body and how it interacts with objects to process their size and weight [24]. Remarkably, patient IW’s use of this compensatory strategy allows him to lift objects and judge their weight to a degree that is as accurate and proficient as age-matched controls [25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-level sensory processes play a more crucial role than high-level cognitive ones in the size-weight illusion

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The size-weight illusion (SWI) pertains to the experience of perceiving the smaller of two equally weighted objects as heavier. Competing theories to explain the illusion can be generally grouped into cognitive and sensory theories, which place more importance on top-down processing of cognitive expectations and bottom-up processing of sensory information about the size and weight of objects, respectively. The current study examined the relative contribution of these two general explanations. This was done by varying the amounts of cognitive load in a dual-task and the quality of somatosensory feedback by wearing or not wearing gloves. Participants placed their hands through a curtain inside a box so they could not see the test objects. Inside the box, they were presented with either a small or large sphere of varying weights, which they explored manually without vision. Participants provided magnitude estimates about each object’s weight in four experimental conditions (no-load with gloves, no-load without gloves, low-load without gloves, and high-load without gloves). The dual-task involved the visual presentation of a cross on a computer monitor that changed in both colour and orientation. With foot pedals, the participants responded to a target colour and / or orientation, which varied across conditions, while they hefted an object. Some conditions were designed to be more cognitively taxing than others (high-load > low-load > no-load conditions). The results revealed that the strength of the SWI diminished when participants wore the gloves but did not change as cognitive load increased on the dual-task. We conclude that the illusion is more influenced by bottom-up sensory than top-down cognitive processes.

show abstract

“…This experiment followed a well-established protocol for weight illusion studies (Buckingham et al, 2009(Buckingham et al, , 2016a(Buckingham et al, , 2016b, with perceptual ratings and fingertip force measurements taken on every trial. On each trial, participants sat in front of a table in a height-adjustable chair with their eyes closed and their dominant hand flat on the table surface.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Whether Semantic Cues Can Affect Felt Heaviness When Lifting Novel Objects

Naylor

Power

Buckingham

2020

Journal of Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well established that manipulations of low-level stimulus properties unrelated to mass can impact perception of heaviness, the most famous example being the size-weight illusion whereby small objects feel heavier than equally-weighted larger objects. Interestingly, manipulations of high-level cues such as material have also induced weight illusions, highlighting that cognitive expectations alone are enough to create illusory weight differences. Less is known, however, about what type of cognitive expectations can influence perception of heaviness. As labels are often used to signify the heaviness of objects, this study examined whether semantic cues could induce a novel weight illusion. Participants lifted equally-sized and equally-weighted sets of objects labelled as 'light' and 'heavy' and reported their perceived heaviness both prior to and after lifting. Fingertip forces were also measured to understand how semantic cues may influence sensorimotor prediction. The labels clearly affected pre-lift-off expectations of heaviness. By contrast, we found no effect of these labels on the perceived heaviness of objects, nor on the forces used to grip and lift them on early trials. In other words, we find no evidence that semantic cues affect perception or action enough to induce a novel weight illusion. These findings suggest that the explicit expectations created by the labels did not dominate the implicit expectations created by the equal sizes of the objects, highlighting the segregated nature of cognitive expectations and their variable influences on perception and action.

show abstract

Perceiving and acting upon weight illusions in the absence of somatosensory information

Abstract: Buckingham G, Michelakakis EE, Cole J. Perceiving and acting upon weight illusions in the absence of somatosensory information. J

Cited by 16 publications

References 45 publications

The impact of using an upper-limb prosthesis on the perception of real and illusory weight differences

The impact of using an upper-limb prosthesis on the perception of real and illusory weight differences

Low-level sensory processes play a more crucial role than high-level cognitive ones in the size-weight illusion

Examining Whether Semantic Cues Can Affect Felt Heaviness When Lifting Novel Objects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About