↓ Skip to main content

Getting a grip on heaviness perception: a review of weight illusions and their probable causes

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
Title
Getting a grip on heaviness perception: a review of weight illusions and their probable causes
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00221-014-3926-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gavin Buckingham

Abstract

Weight illusions--where one object feels heavier than an identically weighted counterpart--have been the focus of many recent scientific investigations. The most famous of these illusions is the 'size-weight illusion', where a small object feels heavier than an identically weighted, but otherwise similar-looking, larger object. There are, however, a variety of similar illusions which can be induced by varying other stimulus properties, such as surface material, temperature, colour, and even shape. Despite well over 100 years of research, there is little consensus about the mechanisms underpinning these illusions. In this review, I will first provide an overview of the weight illusions that have been described. I will then outline the dominant theories that have emerged over the past decade for why we consistently misperceive the weights of objects which vary in size, with a particular focus on the role of lifters' expectations of heaviness. Finally, I will discuss the magnitude of the various weight illusions and suggest how this largely overlooked facet of the topic might resolve some of the debates surrounding the cause of these misperceptions of heaviness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 115 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 22%
Student > Master 16 14%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 20 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 31%
Engineering 12 10%
Neuroscience 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Computer Science 6 5%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 26 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 13 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,555,302
of 24,995,564 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#95
of 3,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,305
of 231,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#1
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,995,564 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,393 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
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 231,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.