Affordance, proper function, and the physical basis of perceived heaviness

Cognition

Volumn 73, Issue 2, 1999, Pages

  Turvey, M T ^a   Shockley, Kevin ^a   Carello, Claudia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

Affordance; Perceived heaviness; Physical basis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DYNAMICS; ILLUSION; MASS; MENTAL HEALTH; MOTION; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; WEIGHT;

ADULT; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; GRAVITATION; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOPHYSICS; TOUCH; WEIGHT PERCEPTION;

EID: 0032704603     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00050-5     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Amazeen E. The effects of volume on perceived heaviness by dynamic touch: With and without vision. Ecological Psychology. 9:1997;245-264.
2. Amazeen E. Perceptual independence of size and weight by dynamic touch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 25:1999;102-119.
3. Amazeen E., Turvey M.T. Weight perception and the haptic size-weight illusion are functions of the inertia tensor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 22:1996;213-232.
4. Ashby G., Townsend J.T. Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review. 93:1986;154-179.
5. Bingham G., Schmidt R.C., Rosenblum L. Hefting for a maximum distance throw: A smart perceptual mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 15:1989;507-528.
6. Borisenko A.I., Tarapov I.E. Vector and Tensor Analysis. 1979;Dover, New York.
7. Carello C., Thuot S., Anderson K.L., Turvey M.T. Perceiving the sweet spot. Perception. 28:1999;307-320.
8. Charpentier A. Analyse experimentale de quelques elements de la sensation de poids [Experimental study of some aspects of weight perception]. Archives de Physiologie Normales et Pathologiques 3. 1891;122-135.
9. Cross D.V., Rotkin L. The relation between size and apparent heaviness. Perception and Psychophysics. 18:1975;79-87.
10. Gibson J.J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. 1979;Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
11. Hestenes D. New Foundations for Classical Mechanics. 1986;Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
12. Holway A.H., Goldring L.E., Zigler M.J. On the discriminability of minimal differences in weight: IV. Kinesthetic adaptation for exposure intensity as variant. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 23:1938;536-544.
13. Jones L.A. Perception of force and weight: Theory and research. Psychological Bulletin. 100:1986;29-42.
14. Kreidfeldt J.G., Chuang M.-C. Moment of inertia: Psychophysical study of an overlooked sensation. Science. 206:1979;588-590.
15. Krieger M. Doing Physics. 1992;Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
16. Millikan R. Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories. 1984;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
17. Millikan R. White Queen Psychology and Other Essays for Alice. 1993;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
18. Ross H.E., Reschke M.F. Mass estimation and discrimination during brief periods of zero gravity. Perception and Psychophysics. 31:1982;429-436.
19. Stevens J.C., Rubin L.L. Psychophysical scales of apparent heaviness and the size-weight illusion. Perception and Psychophysics. 8:1970;225-230.
20. Turvey M.T. Dynamic touch. American Psychologist. 51:1996;1134-1152.
21. Turvey M.T., Carello C. Dynamic touch. Epstein W., Rogers S. Handbook of Perception and Cognition: V. Perception of Space and Motion. 1995;401-490 Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
22. Weber E.H. Ross H.E. The Sense of Touch. 1978;Academic Press, London. Original work published 1834.