The Representation of Body Size: Variations With Viewpoint and Sex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perceived body size is a fundamental construct that reflects our knowledge of self and is important for all aspects of perception, yet how we perceive our bodies and how the body is represented in the brain is not yet fully understood. In order to understand how the brain perceives and represents the body, we need an objective method that is not vulnerable to affective or cognitive influences. Here, we achieve this by assessing the accuracy of full-body size perception using a novel psychophysical method that taps into the implicit body representation for determining perceived size. Participants were tested with life-size images of their body as seen from different viewpoints with the expectation that greater distortions would occur for unfamiliar views. The Body Shape Questionnaire was also administered. Using a two-alternative forced choice design, participants were sequentially shown two life-size images of their whole body dressed in a standardized tight-fitting outfit seen from the front, side, or back. In one image, the aspect ratio (with the horizontal or vertical dimension fixed) was varied using an adaptive staircase, while the other was undistorted. Participants reported which image most closely matched their own body size. The staircase honed in on the distorted image that was equally likely as the undistorted photo to be judged as matching their perception of themselves. From this, the perceived size of their internal body representation could be calculated. Underestimation of body width was found when the body was viewed from the front or back in both sexes. However, females, but not males, overestimated their width when the body was viewed from the side. Height was perceived accurately in all views. These findings reveal distortions in perceived size for healthy populations and show that both viewpoint and sex matter for the implicit body representation. Though the back view of one's body is rarely-if ever-seen, perceptual distortions were the same as for the front view. This provides insight into how the brain might construct its representation of three-dimensional body shape.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".