↓ Skip to main content

Contribution of surface material and size to the expected versus the perceived weight of objects

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Contribution of surface material and size to the expected versus the perceived weight of objects
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, October 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13414-016-1212-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michele Vicovaro, Luigi Burigana

Abstract

Because the perceived weight of objects may be affected by various nonweight properties, such as their size and the density of their surface material, relative weight is sometimes misperceived (the size-weight illusion and the material-weight illusion, respectively). A widely accepted explanation for weight illusions is provided by the so-called expectation model, according to which the perceived weight stems from the contrast between the actual and expected weights. In the present study, we varied both the surface material and the size of stimuli, while keeping constant their physical weights. In Experiment 1, the participants lifted the stimuli by grasping them on opposite sides, whereas in Experiment 2 they lifted them by using a string that was attached to their top surface. We used a variant of the random conjoint measurement paradigm to obtain subjective interval scales of the contributions of surface material and size to the expected and the perceived weight of the stimuli. Inconsistently with the predictions from the expectation model, we found, in both experiments, that the surface material contributed more than the size to the expected weight, whereas the size contributed more than the surface material to the perceived weight. The results support the hypothesis that perceived weight may depend on implicit, rather than explicit, weight expectations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 22%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 11%
Unspecified 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 7 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,827,930
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#1,508
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,382
of 323,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#12
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.