Influence of visually perceived shape and brightness on perceived size, expected weight, and perceived weight of 3D objects

Michele Vicovaro,Giulio Vidotto,Katia Ruta,Gavin Buckingham

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220149

Abstract

In the size–weight illusion, when two objects of identical weight but different volume are lifted, the smaller object is typically perceived to weigh more than the larger object. A well-known explanation for this and other weight illusions is provided by the hypothesis that perceived weight results from the contrast between actual and expected weight. More recently, it has been suggested that an object’s size may exert a direct and automatic effect on its perceived weight, independently of expected weight. Here we test these two hypotheses by exploring two illusions that have been known for a long time but have remained relatively underexplored, namely the shape–weight and brightness–weight illusions. Specifically, we measured the influence of visually perceived shape and brightness on the perceived size, the expected weight, and the perceived weight of 3D plastic objects. A numerical rating task was used in Experiment 1, and a paired comparison task was used in Experiment 2. The results showed that spheres were perceived to be heavier than tetrahedrons and cubes, and cubes were perceived to be heavier than tetrahedrons. We did not find any consistent relationship between brightness and perceived weight. A systematic comparison between perceived size, expected weight, and perceived weight showed that the visual shape–weight and brightness–weight illusions are partially inconsistent with the hypothesis that perceived weight results from the contrast between actual and expected weight and with the hypothesis that perceived weight results from the contrast between actual weight and perceived size. The results appear to suggest that there may be a dissociation between the processing of variables that contribute to the conscious experience of size, such as brightness and vertical height, and the processing of variables that contribute to perceived weight, such as surface area.

Highlights

The idea that the subjective impression of weight is a function of physical weight has intuitive appeal, as it would mean that our sensory system works to a weight scale
A contribution to the current debate on the relationship between perceived weight, expected weight, and perceived size [12,17,18,19,22,23,25] may come from the study of two illusions that have been known for a long time but that have remained relatively underexplored, namely the shape–weight illusion [26,27,28] and the brightness–weight illusion [29,30]
2) By comparing the influence of shape on the perceived size, the expected weight, and the perceived weight of the stimuli, we could test whether the shape–weight illusion can be explained in terms of the contrast between actual and expected weight and/or in terms of the contrast between actual weight and perceived size, in line with the idea that perceived size may directly affect perceived weight independently of expected weight [19]

Summary

Introduction

The idea that the subjective impression of weight is a function of physical weight has intuitive appeal, as it would mean that our sensory system works to a weight scale. 2) By comparing the influence of shape on the perceived size, the expected weight, and the perceived weight of the stimuli, we could test whether the shape–weight illusion can be explained in terms of the contrast between actual and expected weight and/or in terms of the contrast between actual weight and perceived size, in line with the idea that perceived size may directly affect perceived weight independently of expected weight [19] In his pioneering study on the influence of the color of objects on their perceived weight, De Camp [29] observed a weak positive relationship between the brightness of the stimuli and their perceived weight. We test the replicability and generalizability of the brightness–weight illusion using a set of stimuli, a weighing mode, and a psychophysical method different from those originally employed by Walker, Francis, and Walker [30]. 2) By comparing the influence of brightness on the perceived size, the expected weight, and the perceived weight of the stimuli, we could test the extent to which the brightness–weight illusion can be explained in terms of the contrast between actual and expected weight and/or in terms of the contrast between actual weight and perceived size

Participants

Procedure

Results and discussion