Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 224, Issue 2, pp 221–231

Felt heaviness is used to perceive the affordance for throwing but rotational inertia does not affect either

  • Qin Zhu
  • Kevin Shockley
  • Michael A. Riley
  • Michael T. Tolston
  • Geoffrey P. Bingham
Research Article

Abstract

Bingham et al. discovered a perceptible affordance property, composed of a relation between object weight and size, used to select optimal objects for long-distance throwing. Subsequent research confirmed this finding, but disconfirmed a hypothesis formulated by Bingham et al. about the information used to perceive the affordance. Following this, Zhu and Bingham investigated the possibility that optimal objects for throwing are selected as having a particular felt heaviness. The results supported this hypothesis. Perceived heaviness exhibits the size–weight illusion: to be perceived as equally heavy, larger objects must weigh more than smaller ones. Amazeen and Turvey showed that heaviness perception is determined by rotational inertia. We investigated whether rotational inertia would determine both perceived heaviness and throw-ability when spherical objects were held in the hand and wielded about the wrist. We found again that a particular judged heaviness corresponded to judged throw-ability. However, rotational inertia was found to have no effect on either judgment, suggesting that rotational inertia does not determine perceived heaviness of spherical objects held in the hand, as it did for the weighted-rod-type objects used by Amazeen and Turvey.

Keywords

Affordance Throwing Rotational Inertia 

References

  1. Amazeen E (1997) The effects of volume on perceived heaviness by dynamic touch: with and without vision. Ecol Psychol 9:245–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amazeen EL, Turvey MT (1996) Weight perception and the haptic size-weight illusion are functions of the inertia tensor. J Exp Psychol Hum 22:213–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bingham GP, Schmidt R, Rosenblum L (1989) Hefting for a maximum distance throw: a smart perceptual mechanism. J Exp Psychol Hum 15:507–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carello C, Thuot S, Anderson KL (1999) Perceiving the sweet spot. Perception 28:307–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis CM, Brickett P (1977) The role of preparatory muscle tension in the size-weight illusion. Percept Psychophys 20:33–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flanagan JR, Beltzner MA (2000) Independence of perceptual and sensorimotor predictions in the size-weight illusion. Nat Neurosci 3:737–741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hove P, Riley MA, Shockley K (2006) Perceiving affordances of hockey sticks by dynamic touch. Ecol Psychol 18:163–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kingma I, Beek P, van Dieen JH (2002) The inertia tensor versus static moment and mass in perceiving length and heaviness of hand-wielded rods. J Exp Psychol Hum 28:180–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kingma I, van de Langenberg R, Beek P (2004) Which mechanical invariants are associated with the perception of length and heaviness of a nonvisible handheld rod? Testing the inertia tensor hypothesis. J Exp Psychol Hum 30:346–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Michaels CF, Weier Z, Harrison SJ (2007) Using vision and dynamic touch to perceive the affordances of tools. Perception 36:750–772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ross HE (1966) Sensory information necessary for the size-weight illusion. Nature 212:650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shockley K, Grocki M, Carello C, Turvey MT (2001) Somatosensory attunement to the rigid body laws. Exp Brain Res 136:133–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shockley K, Carello C, Turvey MT (2004) Metamers in the haptic perception of heaviness and moveableness. Percept Psychophys 66:731–742PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Turvey MT, Shockley K, Carello C (1999) Affordance, proper function and the physical basis of perceived heaviness. Cognition 73:B17–B26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Van de Langenberg R, Kingma I, Beek P (2006) Mechanical invariants are implicated in dynamic touch as a function of their salience in the stimulus flow. J Exp Psychol Hum 32:1093–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wagman JB, Carello C (2001) Affordances and inertial constraints on tool use. Ecol Psychol 13:173–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wagman JB, Shockley K (2011) Metamers for hammer-with-ability are not metamers for poke-with-ability. Ecol Psychol 23:76–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zhu Q, Bingham GP (2008) Is hefting for throwing a smart mechanism? J Exp Psychol Hum 34:929–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zhu Q, Bingham GP (2009) Investigating the information used to detect an affordance for maximum distance throws. In: Wagman J, Pagano C (eds) Stud percept action X. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 122–126Google Scholar
  20. Zhu Q, Bingham GP (2010) Learning to perceive the affordance for long-distance throwing: smart mechanism or function Learning? J Exp Psychol Hum 36:862–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zhu Q, Bingham GP (2011) Human readiness to throw: the size-weight illusion is not an illusion when picking the best objects to throw. Evol Hum Behav 32:288–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhu Q, Dapena J, Bingham GP (2009) Learning to throw to maximum distances: do release angle and speed reflect affordances for throwing? Hum Mov Sci 28:708–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qin Zhu
    • 1
  • Kevin Shockley
    • 2
  • Michael A. Riley
    • 2
  • Michael T. Tolston
    • 2
  • Geoffrey P. Bingham
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Kinesiology and HealthUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Center for Cognition, Action and PerceptionUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations