Abstract
When two sizes, one perceived by vision and the other by kinesthesia, are apparently equal, the physical relationship between them varies: The sizes may be equal, or the visual size may be larger than the kinesthetic size, or vice versa. In this study, the method of cross-modal matching and the method of magnitude production were used to explore the relationship between apparently equal sizes (5–40 cm) perceived by vision and by kinesthesia. The sizes were linear or circular, and the mode of standard presentation was visual, kinesthetic, or verbal. The size and the direction of the intermodal mismatch varied with the size of the standard. It was also found that an apparent length of movement varied with the direction of movement. In all conditions, the relationship between apparently equal visual and kinesthetic sizes was well approximated by a power function.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Avery, G. C., &Day, R. H. (1969). Basis of horizontal-vertical illusion.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 376–380.
Brown, J. S., Knauft, E. B., &Rosenbaum, G. (1948). The accuracy of positioning reactions as a function of their direction and extent.American Journal of Psychology,61, 167–182.
Cheng, M. F. H. (1968). Tactile-kinesthetic perception of length.American Journal of Psychology,81, 74–82.
Clark, F. J., &Horch, K. W. (1986). Kinaesthesia. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. R. Thomas (Eds.),Handbook of perception and human performance (pp. 13-1 to 13-62). New York: Wiley.
Connolly, K., &Jones, B. (1970). A developmental study of afferentreafferent integration.British Journal of Psychology,61, 259–266.
Coren, S., &Girgus, J. S. (1978).Seeing is deceiving: The psychology of visual illusions. New York: Erlbaum.
Hatwell, Y. (1990). Spatial perception by eyes and hand: Comparison and intermodal integration. In C. Bard, M. Fleury, & L. Hay (Eds.),Development of eye-hand coordination across the life span (pp. 99–132). Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
James, W. (1890).Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
Jastrow, J. (1886). The perception of space by disparate modalities.Mind,11, 539–554.
Jones, B. (1973). When are vision and kinaesthesis comparable?British Journal of Psychology,64, 587–591.
Kuennepas, T. M. (1955). An analysis of the “horizontal-vertical illusion.”Journal of Experimental Psychology,49, 134–140.
Laszlo, J. I., Begg, J. M., &Sainsbury, K. M. (1994). The size illusion in children from five years of age and adults.Perception,23, 201–206.
Laszlo, J. I., &Broderick, P. (1985). The size illusion: Visual and kinaesthetic information in size perception.Perception,14, 285–291.
Loomis, J. M., &Lederman, S. J. (1986). Tactual perception. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.),Handbook of perception and human performance (pp. 31-1 to 31-41). New York: Wiley.
Marks, L. E. (1978).The unity of the senses: Interrelations among the modalities. New York: Academic Press.
Michaels, C., &Carello, C. (1981).Direct perception. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Millar, S. (1972). The development of visual and kinesthetic judgments of distance.British Journal of Psychology,63, 271–282.
Newell, K. M., Shapiro, D. C., &Carlton, M. J. (1979). Coordinating visual and kinesthetic memory codes.British Journal of Psychology,70, 87–96.
Ono, A. (1969). Interdependence in successive judgements of the duration, distance and speed of a manual movement.Tohuku Psychologica Folia,28, 29–53.
Paillard, J., &Brouchon, M. A. (1974). A proprioceptive contribution to the spatial encoding of position cues for ballistic movements.Brain Research,71, 273–284.
Raffel, G. (1936). Visual and kinesthetic judgments of length.American Journal of Psychology,48, 331–334.
Ronco, P. G. (1963). An experimental quantifications of kinesthetic sensation: Extent of arm movement.Journal of Psychology,55, 227–238.
Rule, S. J. (1969). Subject difference in exponents from circle size, numerousness, and line length.Psychonomic Science,15, 284–285.
Seizova, T. (1995).Visual, tactual, kinesthetic and haptic size perception: Cross-modal matching (Report No. 17, pp. 1–28). Belgrade: University of Belgrade, Laboratory for Experimental Psychology.
Seizova, T., & Stankov, L. (1998).Individual differences in crossmodal matching of length. Manuscript in preparation.
Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law.Psychological Review,64, 153–181.
Stevens, S. S. (1971). Issues in psychophysical measurement.Psychological Review,78, 426–450.
Stevens, S. S., &Guirao, M. (1963). Subjective scaling of length and area and the matching of length to loudness and brightness.Journal of Experimental Psychology,66, 177–186.
Teghtsoonian, M. (1965). The judgment of size.American Journal of Psychology,78, 392–402.
Teghtsoonian, R. (1981). Logical difficulties in physical correlate theory.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,4, 205–206.
Teghtsoonian, R., &Teghtsoonian, M. (1970). Two varieties of perceived length.Perception & Psychophysics,8, 389–392.
Welch, R. B. (1986). Adaptation of space perception. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.),Handbook of perception and human performance (pp. 24-1 to 24-37). New York: Wiley.
Wong, T. S. (1977). Dynamic properties of radial and tangential movements as determinants of the haptic horizontal-vertical illusion with an L figure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 151–164.
Yilmaz, H. (1967). Perceptual invariance and the psychophysical law.Perception & Psychophysics,2, 533–538.
Zelaznik, H. N., &Lantero, D. (1996). The role of vision in repetitive circle drawing.Acta Psychologica,92, 105–118.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article is a version of the author’s master’s thesis submitted to the University of Belgrade.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Seizova-Cajić, T. Size perception by vision and kinesthesia. Perception & Psychophysics 60, 705–718 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206057
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206057