Rotational inertia and multimodal heaviness perception

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 1001-1006

  Streit, Matthew ^a   Shockley, Kevin ^a   Riley, Michael A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 37349107294     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03194135     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. AMAZEEN, E. (1997). The effects of volume on perceived heaviness by dynamic touch: With and without vision. Ecological Psychology, 9, 245-263.
2. AMAZEEN, E. (1999). Perceptual independence of size and weight by dynamic touch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 102-119.
3. AMAZEEN, E., & TURVEY, M. T. (1996). Weight perception and the haptic size-weight illusion are functions of the inertia tensor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 213-232.
4. BINGHAM, G. (1987). Kinematic form and scaling: Further investigations on the visual perception of lifted weight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 155-177.
5. CHARPENTIER, A. (1891). Analyse experimentale de quelques elements de la sensation de poids [Experimental study of some aspects of weight perception]. Archives de Physiologie Normale et Pathologique, 3, 122-135.
6. CROSS, D. V., & ROTKIN, L. (1975). The relation between size and apparent heaviness. Perception & Psychophysics, 18, 79-87.
7. ELLIS, R. R., & LEDERMAN, S. (1993). The role of haptic versus visual volume cues in the size-weight illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 315-324.
8. EPSTEIN, W. (1982). Percept-percept coupling. Perception, 11, 75-83.
9. FITZPATRICK, P., CARELLO, C., & TURVEY, M. T. (1994). Eigenvalues of the inertia tensor and exteroception by the "muscular sense." Neuroscience, 60, 551-568.
10. GRANDY, M. S., & WESTWOOD, D. A. (2006). Opposite perceptual and sensorimotor responses to a size-weight illusion. Journal of Neurophysiology, 95, 3887-3892.
11. GREER, K. (1989). Gravitational and inertial effects of mass on the perceived heaviness of objects. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 18-20.
12. HAY, J. C., PICK, H. L., JR., & IKEDA, K. (1965). Visual capture produced by prism spectacles. Psychonomic Science, 2, 215-216.
13. KREIFELDT, J. G., & CHUANG, M. (1979). Moment of inertia: Psychophysical study of an overlooked sensation. Science, 206, 588-590.
14. PAGANO, C. C., & CABE, P. A. (2003). Constancy in dynamic touch: Length perceived by dynamic touch is invariant over changes in media. Ecological Psychology, 15, 1-17.
15. PICK, H. L., WARREN, D. H., & HAY, J. C. (1969). Sensory conflict in judgments of spatial direction. Perception & Psychophysics, 6, 203-205.
16. RILEY, M. A., & TURVEY, M. T. (2001). Inertial constraints on limb proprioception are independent of visual calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 438-455.
17. RUNESON, S. (1983). On the visual perception of dynamic events (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Psychologica Upsaliensia, Serial 9). Uppsala: University of Uppsala. (Original work published 1977)
18. RUNESON, S., & FRYKHOLM, G. (1981). Visual perception of lifted weight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 7, 733-740.
19. RUNESON, S., & FRYKHOLM, G. (1983). Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 585-615.
20. RUNESON, S., JUSLIN, P., & OLSSON, H. (2000). Visual perception of dynamic properties: Cue heuristics versus direct perceptual competence. Psychological Review, 107, 525-555.
21. SHADMEHR, R., MUSSA-IVALDI, F. A., & BIZZI, E. (1993). Postural force fields of the human arm and their role in generating multijoint movements. Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 45-62.
22. SHOCKLEY, K., CARELLO, C., & TURVEY, M. T. (2004). Metamers in the haptic perception of heaviness and moveableness. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 731-742.
23. SHOCKLEY, K., GROCKI, M., CARELLO, C., & TURVEY, M. T. (2001). Somatosensory attunement to the rigid body laws. Experimental Brain Research, 136, 133-137.
24. STEVENS, J. C., & RUBIN, L. L. (1970). Psychophysical scales of apparent heaviness and the size-weight illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 225-230.
25. STOFFREGEN, T. A., & BARDY, B. G. (2001). On specification and the senses. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 195-261.
26. STREIT, M., & SHOCKLEY, K. (2005). Optical gain and the perception of heaviness. In H. Heft & K. L. Marsh (Eds.), Studies in perception and action VIII (pp. 185-187). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. STREIT, M., SHOCKLEY, K., MORRIS, A., & RILEY, M. A. (2007). Rotational kinematics influence multimodal perception of heaviness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 363-367.
28. TURVEY, M. T., SHOCKLEY, K., & CARELLO, C. (1999). Affordance, proper function and the physical basis of perceived heaviness. Cognition, 73, B17-B26.
29. WARREN, D. H., & PICK, L. (1970). Intermodality relations in localization in blind and sighted people. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 430-432.
30. WEBER, E. H. (1978). The sense of touch (H.E. Ross, Ed. & Trans.). London: Academic Press. (Original work published 1834)