Objective: We experimentally tested the degree that the size-weight illusion depends on perceptual conditions allowing the observer to assume that both the visual and the kinesthetic stimuli of a weight seen and lifted emanate from the same object. We expected that the degree of the illusion depended on the “realism” provided by different kinds of virtual reality (VR) used when the weights are seen in virtual reality and at the same time lifted in natural reality. Background: Welch and Warren (1980) reported that an intermodal influence can be expected only if perceptual information of different modalities is compellingly related to only one object. Method: Objects of different sizes and weights were presented to 50 participants in natural reality or in four virtual realities: two immersive head-mounted display VRs (with or without head tracking) and two nonimmersive desktop VRs (with or without screening from input of the natural environment using a visor). The objects' heaviness was scaled using the magnitude estimation method. Results: Data show that the degree of the illusion is largest in immersive and lowest in nonimmersive virtual realities. Conclusion: The higher the degree of the illusion is, the more compelling the situation is perceived and the more the observed data are in correspondence with the data predicted for the illusion in natural reality. This shows that the kind of mediating technology used strongly influences the presence experienced. Application: The size-weight illusion's sensitivity to conditions that affect the sense of presence makes it a promising objective presence measure.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amazeen, E.L., & Turvey, T. (1996). Weight perception and the haptic size-weight illusion are functions of the inertia tensor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 213-232.
2.
Anderson, N.H. (1970). Averaging mode applied to the size-weight illusion . Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 1-4.
3.
Biocca, F., Kim, J., & Choi, J. (2001). Visual touch in virtual environments: An exploratory study of presence, multi-modal interfaces, and cross-modal sensory illusions . Presence, 10, 247-265.
4.
Carpentier, A. (1891). Analyse expérimentale: De quelques éléments de la sensation de poids [Experimental analysis: Some elements involved in sensing weight]. Archives de Physiologie Normale et Pathologique, 3, 122-135.
5.
Cross, D.V., & Rotkin, L. (1975). The relation between size and apparent heaviness . Perception and Psychophysics, 3, 122-135.
6.
Draper, J.V., & Blair, L.M. (1996). Workload, flow, and telepresence during teleoperation . In Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 1030-1035). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Ehrsson, H.H., Spence, C., & Passingham, R.E. (2004). That's my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science, 305, 875-877.
9.
Faubert, J. (2001). Motion parallax, stereoscopy, and the perception of depth: Practical and theoretical issues. In B. Javidi & O. Fumio (Eds.), Three-dimensional video and display: Devices and systems, Proceedings of SPIE (CR76, pp. 168-191). Bellingham, WA: Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.
10.
Fishkin, S.M., Pishkin, V., & Stahl, M.L. (1975). Factors involved in visual capture. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 427-434.
11.
Flanagan, J.R., & Beltzner, M.A. (2000). Independence of perceptual and sensorimotor predictions in the size-weight illusion. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 737-740.
12.
Gaggioli, A. (2001). Using virtual reality in experimental psychology . In G. Riva & C. Galimberti (Eds.), Towards cyberpsychology: Mind, cognitions and society in the Internet age (pp. 158-174). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
13.
Gaggioli, A., & Breining, R. (2001). Perception and cognition in immersive virtual reality. In G. Riva & F. Davide (Eds.), Communications through virtual technologies: Identity, community and technology in the communication age (pp. 71-86). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
14.
Heineken, E., & Schulte, F.P. (2000). Acquiring distance knowledge in virtual environments . In NATO/ RTO (Ed.), Proceedings of the NATO RTO Workshop (HFM-058/WS-007, pp. 17.1-17.5). Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Research & Technology Organisation/Research & Technology Agency.
15.
Hendrix, C., & Barfield, W. (1996). Presence within virtual environments as a function of visual display parameters. Presence, 5, 274-289.
16.
Jones, L.A. (1986). Perception of force and weight: Theory and research . Psychological Bulletin, 100, 29-42.
17.
Lecuyer, A., Coquillart, S., & Kheddar, A. (2000). Pseudo-haptic feedback: Can isometric input simulate force feedback? In S. K. Feiner & D. Thalmann (Eds.), Virtual Reality 2000 Conference (pp. 83-90). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
18.
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence . Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), Retrieved October 23, 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue2/lombard.html
19.
Martin, L., & Müller, G.E. (1899). Zur Analyse der Unterschiedlichkeitsempfindlichkeit [An analysis of sensitivity to differences]. Leipzig, Germany: Barth.
20.
Masin, C.M., & Crestoni, L. (1988). Experimental demonstration of the sensory basis of the size-weight illusion. Perception and Psychophysics , 44, 309-371.
21.
Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality. New York: Basic Books.
22.
Müller, G.E., & Schumann, F. (1889). Über die psychologischen Grundlagen der Vergleichung gehobener Gewichte [Psychological foundations of the comparison of lifted weights]. Archiv für die Gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere, 45, 37-112.
23.
Murray, D.J., Ellis, R.E., Bandomir, C.A., & Ross, H.E. (1999). Carpentier (1891) on the size-weight illusion . Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 1681-1685.
24.
Nielsen, J. (1999). Designing Web usability. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.
25.
Pavani, F., Spence, C., & Driver, J. (2000). Visual capture of touch: Out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychological Science, 11, 353-359.
26.
Prothero, J., Parker, D., Furness, T.A., & Wells, M. (1995). Towards a robust, quantitative measure of presence . In Proceedings of the Conference on Experimental Analysis and Measurement of Situation Awareness (pp. 359-366). Daytona Beach, FL: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Press.
27.
Radeau, M., & Bertelson, P. (1977). Adaptation to auditory-visual discordance and ventriloquism in semirealistic situations. Perception and Psychophysics, 22, 137-146.
28.
Sarris, V., & Heineken, E. (1976). An experimental test of two mathematical models applied to the size-weight illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2, 295-298.
29.
Schuemie, M.J., & van der Mast, C.A.P.G. (1999). Presence: Interacting in virtual reality? In Proceedings of the Twente Workshop on Language Technology (pp. 213-217). Enschede, The Netherlands: Universiteit Twente.
30.
Schuemie, M.J., van der Straaten, P., Krijn, M., & van der Mast, C.A.P.G. (2001). Research on presence in virtual reality: A survey. CyberPsychology and Behavior , 8, 183-202.
31.
Sheridan, T.B. (1996). Further musings on the psychophysics of presence . Presence, 5, 241-246.
32.
Sjöberg, L. (1969). Sensation scale in the size-weight illusion. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,10, 109-112.
33.
Slater, M., Steed, A., McCarthy, J., & Maringelli, F. (1998). The influence of body movement on subjective presence in virtual environments. Presence, 40, 469-477.
34.
Spence, C., Pavani, F., & Driver, J. (1998). What crossing the hands can reveal about visuotactile links in spatial attention [Abstract]. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society, 3, 13.
35.
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communications, 42, 73-93.
36.
Surdick, R.T., Davis, E.T., King, R.A., & Hodges, L.F. (1997). The perception of distances in simulated visual displays: Acomparison of the effectivness and accuracy of multiple depth cues across viewing distances. Presence, 6, 513-531.
37.
Tastevin, J. (1937). En partant de l'expérience d'aristote les déplacements artificiels des parties du corps ne sont pas suivis par le sentiment de ces parties ni par les sensations qu'on peut y produire [Starting from Aristotle's experiment: Artificial displacements of parts of the body are not followed by feelings in these parts or by the sensations which can be produced in them] . L'Encéphale, 32(2), 57-84.
38.
Walker, J.T. (1971). Visual capture in visual illusions. Perception and Psychophysics, 10, 71-74.
Welch, R.B., & Warren, D.H. (1986). Intersensory interactions. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman , & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and performance: Vol. I: Sensory processes and perception (pp. 25.1-25.36). New York: Wiley.
41.
Willemsen, P., Colton, M.B., Creem-Regehr, S.H., & Thompson, W.B. (2004). The effects of head-mounted-display mechanics on distance judgments in virtual environments. In ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization (pp. 35-48). Los Angeles: ACM Press.
