Abstract
When lifting objects of identical mass but different sizes, people perceive the smaller objects as weighing more than the larger ones (the ‘size–weight’ illusion, SWI). While individual’s grip and load force rates are rapidly scaled to the objects’ actual mass, the magnitude of the force used to lift these SWI-inducing objects is rarely discussed. Here, we show that participants continue to apply a greater loading force to a large SWI-inducing cube than to a small SWI cube, lift after lift. These differences in load force persisted long after initial errors in grip and load force rates had been corrected. Interestingly, participants who showed the largest illusion made the smallest errors in load force. This unexpected relationship suggests that the motor system is consistently biased toward the expectations of heaviness for a particular stimulus in a Bayesian fashion, and that this loading error is subsequently reduced by SWI perceptual errors in the opposite direction.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brayanov JB, Smith MA (2010) Bayesian and “Anti-Bayesian” biases in sensory integration for action and perception in the size-weight illusion. J Neurophysiol 103:1518–1531
Buckingham G, Goodale MA (2010) Lifting without seeing: the role of vision in perceiving and acting upon the size weight illusion. PLoS ONE 5(3):e9709. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009709
Buckingham G, Cant JS, Goodale MA (2009) Living in a material world: how visual cues to material properties affect the way that we lift objects and perceive their weight. J Neurophysiol 102:3111–3118
Chang EC, Flanagan JR, Goodale MA (2008) The intermanual transfer of anticipatory force control in precision grip lifting is not influenced by the perception of weight. Exp Brain Res 185:319–329
Charpentier A (1891) Analyse expérimentale: de quelques éléments de la sensation de poids. Arch Physiol Norm Pathol 3:122–135
Chouinard PA, Large ME, Chang EC, Goodale MA (2009) Dissociable neural mechanisms for determining the perceived heaviness of objects and the predicted weight of objects during lifting: an fMRI investigation of the size-weight illusion. Neuroimage 44:200–212
Eagleman DM, Sejnowski TJ (2000) Motion integration and postdiction in visual awareness. Science 287:2036–2038
Flanagan JR, Beltzner MA (2000) Independence of perceptual and sensorimotor predictions in the size–weight illusion. Nat Neurosci 3:737–741
Flanagan JR, Bittner JP, Johansson RS (2008) Experience can change distinct size–weight priors engaged when lifting objects and judging their weights. Curr Biol 18:1742–1747
Geldard FA, Sherrick CE (1972) The cutaneous “rabbit”: a perceptual illusion. Science 178:178–179
Gordon AM, Westling G, Cole KJ, Johansson R (1993) Memory representations underlying motor commands used during manipulation of common and novel objects. J Neurophysiol 69:1789–1796
Grandy MS, Westwood DA (2006) Opposite perceptual and sensorimotor responses to a size–weight illusion. J Neurophysiol 95:3887–3892
Granit R (1972) Constant errors in the execution and appreciation of movement. Brain 95:451–460
Jackson SR, Shaw A (2000) The Ponzo illusion affects gruo-force but not grip-aperture scaling during prehension movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:418–423
Johansson RS, Flanagan JR (2009) Coding and use of tactile signals from the fingertips in object manipulation tasks. Nat Rev Neurosci 10:345–359
Johansson RS, Westling G (1988) Coordinated isometric muscle commands adequately and erroneously programmed for the weight during lifting task with precision grip. Exp Brain Res 71:59–71
Kinoshita H, Backstrom L, Flanagan JR, Johansson RS (1997) Tangential torque effects on the control of grip forces when holding objects with a precision grip. J Neurophysiol 78:1619–1630
Mawase F, Karniel A (2010) Evidence of predictive control in lifting series of virtual objects. Exp Brain Res 203:447–452
Mon-Williams M, Murray AH (2000) The size of the visual cue used for programming manipulative forces during prehension grip. Exp Brain Res 135:405–410
Ross HE (1969) When is a weight not illusory? Q J Exp Psychol 21:346–355
Streit M, Shockley K, Riley M (2007) Rotational inertia and multimodal heaviness perception. Psychon Bull Rev 14:1001–1006
Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z, Jordan MI (1995) An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science 269:1880–1882
Zwislocki JJ, Goodman DA (1980) Absolute scaling of sensory magnitudes: a validation. Percept Psychophys 28:28–38
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Jim Ladich for constructing the size–weight illusion cubes and Haitao Yang for technical support. The research was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) operating grant awarded to M. A. Goodale.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buckingham, G., Goodale, M.A. The influence of competing perceptual and motor priors in the context of the size–weight illusion. Exp Brain Res 205, 283–288 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2353-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2353-9