Advertisement

Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 61, Issue 8, pp 1681–1685 | Cite as

Charpentier (1891) on the size—weight illusion

  • David J. Murray
  • Robert R. Ellis
  • Christina A. Bandomir
  • Helen E. Ross
Notes and Comment

Abstract

This paper offers background for an English translation of an article originally published in 1891 by Augustin Charpentier (1852–1916), as well as a summary of it. The article is frequently described as providing the first experimental evidence for the size—weight illusion. A comparison of experiments on the judged heaviness of lifted weights carried out by Weber (1834) and by Charpentier (1891) supports the view that Charpentiers work deserves priority; review of other experimental studies on the size-weight illusion in the 1890s suggests that the idea that the illusion depended on “disappointed expectations,” especially with respect to speed of lift, became dominant almost immediately following the publication of Charpentiers paper. The fate of this and other ideas, including “motor energy,” in 20th-century research on the illusion is briefly described.

Keywords

Grip Force Weight Perception Space Error Apparent Weight Weight Illusion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Amazeen, E. L., &Turvey.M. T. (1996). Weight perception and the haptic size-weight illusion are functions of the inertia tensor.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boro, G. (1962). Physical performance and perceived exertion. InStudia Psychologies et Paedogogica: Series Altera. Investigationes XI (pp. 1–64). Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
  3. Borg, G., Olsson, M. J., Borg, E., &Neely, G. (1996). LIME & #x2014; Level-anchored intersubjective ME. In S. C. Masin (Ed.),Fechner Day 96 (pp. 215–220). Padua: University of Padua, International Society for Psychophysics.Google Scholar
  4. Boring, E. G. (1942).Sensation and perception in the history of experimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  5. Charpentier, A. (1891). Analyse expérimentale: De quelques élèments de la sensation de poids. [Experimental analysis: On some of the elements of sensations of weight].Archives de Physiologie Normale et Pathologique,3, 122–135.Google Scholar
  6. Claparède, E. (1902). Expériences sur la vitesse de soulèvement des poids de volumes différents. [Experiments on the speed of lifting of weights of different volume].Archives de Psychologic1, 69–94.Google Scholar
  7. Dresslar, F. B. (1894). Studies in the psychology of touch.American Journal of Psychology,6,313–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dufour, M. (1916). Augustin Charpentier (1852–1916).Annales D,Oculistique,43, 505–519.Google Scholar
  9. Fechner, G. T. (1860a).Elemente der Psychophysik (2 vols.). Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. [Reprinted (1964): Amsterdam: E. J. Bonset. Vol. 1 only has been translated into English by H. Adler (1966) asElements of psychophysics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.]Google Scholar
  10. Fechner, G. T. (1860b). Über die Contrastempfindung. [On sensations of contrast].Berichte über die Verhandlungen der königlich-sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Mathematischphysische Classe,12, 71–145.Google Scholar
  11. Flournoy, T. (1894). De l’influence de la perception visuelle des corps sur leur poids apparent. [On the influence of the visual perception of bodies on their apparent heaviness].L’Année Psychologique,1, 198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Furth, H. G. (1960). The effect of the size-weight illusion on adaptation level.Journal of Experimental Psychology,60, 150–154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilbert, J. A. (1894). Researches on the mental and physical development of school-children.Studies from the Yale Psychological Laboratory,2, 40–100.Google Scholar
  14. Gregory, R. L. (1958). Eye movements and the stability of the visual world.Nature,182, 1214–1216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hellström, A. (1985). The time-order error and its relatives: Mirrors of cognitive processes in comparing.Psychological Bulletin,97, 35–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hershberger, W., &Misceo, G. (1983). A conditioned weight illusion: Reafference learning without a correlation store.Perception & Psychophysics,33, 391–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holst, E. Von (1954). Relation between the central nervous system and the peripheral organs.British Journal of Animal Behaviour,2, 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. James, W. (1890).Principles of psychology (2 vols.). New York: Holt. [Reprinted (1950), New York: Dover.]Google Scholar
  19. Jones, L. A. (1986). Perception of force and weight: Theory and research.Psychological Bulletin,100, 29–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones, L. [A.] (1996). Proprioception and its contribution to manual dexterity. In A. M. Wing, P. Haggard, & J. R. Flanagan (Eds.),Hand and brain: The neurophysiology and psychology of hand movements (pp. 349–362). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kilbreath, S. L., &Gandevia, S. C. (1991). Independent digit control: Failure to partition perceived heaviness of weights lifted by digits of the human hand.Journal of Physiology,472, 537–556.Google Scholar
  22. Martin, L., &Müller, G. E. (1899).Zur Analyse der Unterschieds-empfindlichkeit [Toward an analysis of sensitivity to differences]. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
  23. Müller, G. E., &Schumann, F. (1889). Über die psychologischen Grundlagen der Vergleichung gehobener Gewichte [On the psychological foundations of the comparison of lifted weights].Archiv für die gesammte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere,45, 37–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nicolas, S. (1998). Théodore Flournoy (1854–1920) and experimental psychology: Historical note.American Journal of Psychology,111,279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Poulton, E. C. (1989).Bias in quantifying judgments. Hove, U.K.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Ross, H. E., &Bischof, K. (1981). Wundt’s views on sensations of innervation: A réévaluation.Perception,10, 319–329.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ross, H. E., &Murray, D. J. (1996).E. H. Weber on the tactile senses (2nd ed.) Hove, U.K.: Taylor & Francis, Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Ross, H. E., Schwartz, E., &Emmerson, P. (1987). The nature of sensorimotor adaptation to altered G levels: Evidence from mass discrimination.Aviation, Space, & Environmental Medicine,58 (9, Suppl.), A148-A152.Google Scholar
  29. Scheerer, E. (1987). Muscle sense and innervation feelings: A chapter in the history of perception and action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.),Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 171–194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Scripture, E. W. (1897). The law of size-weight suggestion.Science,5, 227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Seashore, C. E. (1895). Measurements of illusions and hallucinations in normal life.Studies From the Yale Psychological Laboratory,3, 1–67.Google Scholar
  32. Sperry, R. W. (1950). Neural basis of the spontaneous optokinetic response produced by visual neural inversion.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,43, 482–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Teghtsoonian, R.,Teghtsoonian, M., &Karlsson, J. G. (1981). The limits of perceived magnitude: Comparison among individuals and among perceptual continua.Acta Psychologica,49, 83–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wing, A. M. (1996). Anticipatory control of grip force in rapid arm movement. In A. M. Wing, P. Haggard, & J. R. Flanagan (Eds.),Hand and brain: The neurophysiology and psychology of hand movements (pp. 301–324). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Murray
    • 1
  • Robert R. Ellis
    • 1
  • Christina A. Bandomir
    • 1
  • Helen E. Ross
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.University of StirlingStirlingScotland

Personalised recommendations