The size-weight illusion in a natural and augmented environment with congruent and incongruent size information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The size-weight illusion (SWI) occurs when the smaller of equally weighted objects is judged to feel heavier than the larger object. Experiment 1 compared the SWI generated in a natural versus augmented-reality environment while grasping and lifting three differently sized cubes of equal weight. Both environments induced the SWI for all twenty participants. Lift kinematics covariedwith cube size in both environments. Experiment 2 investigated the influence of incongruent visual size information on the SWI in an augmented environment. Physical cubes were paired with three graphical representations: a smaller, an equal-sized, and a larger cube. The SWI was influenced by both haptic and visual size information. Kinematics covariedwith physical size throughout the experiment. Results suggest that vision significantly impacts the bimodal SWI when haptic and visual size information is not redundant. Results have implications for theories of heaviness perception, multimodal interaction, and perception and action in augmented environments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".