Size Matters: A Single Representation Underlies Our Perceptions of Heaviness in the Size-Weight Illusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the size-weight illusion (SWI), a small object feels heavier than an equally-weighted larger object. It is thought that this illusion is a consequence of the way that we internally represent objects' properties--lifters expect one object to outweigh the other, and the subsequent illusion reflects a contrast with their expectations. Similar internal representations are also thought to guide the application of fingertip forces when we grip and lift objects. To determine the nature of the representations underpinning how we lift objects and perceive their weights, we examined weight judgments in addition to the dynamics and magnitudes of the fingertip forces when individuals lifted small and large exemplars of metal and polystyrene cubes, all of which had been adjusted to have exactly the same mass. Prior to starting the experiment, subjects expected the density of the metal cubes to be higher than that of the polystyrene cubes. Their illusions, however, did not reflect their conscious expectations of heaviness; instead subjects experienced a SWI of the same magnitude regardless of the cubes' material. Nevertheless, they did report that the polystyrene cubes felt heavier than the metal ones (i.e. they experienced a material-weight illusion). Subjects persisted in lifting the large metal cube with more force than the small metal cube, but lifted the large polystyrene cube with roughly the same amount of force that they used to lift the small polystyrene cube. These findings suggest that our perceptual and sensorimotor representations are not only functionally independent from one another, but that the perceptual system represents a more single, simple size-weight relationship which appears to drive the SWI itself.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".