Abstract
Perceived finger span—the perceived spatial separation between the tip of the thumb and the tip of the index finger—was measured by using cross-modal matching to line length. In the first experiment, subjects adjusted finger span to match the length of line segments presented on a video monitor, and conversely, with both hands. Subjects also made estimates of finger span in physical units (“dead reckoning”). Finger spans were measured by using infrared LEDs mounted on the tip of the thumb and the finger tip, so the hand made no contact with any object during the experiment. Unlike in previous studies, the results suggest that perceived finger span is proportional to line length and slightly shorter than the actual span, provided that corrections are made for regression bias. The effect of finger contact was assessed in a second experiment by matching line length both to free span and to spans constrained by the pinching of blocks in the same session. The matching function when subjects were pinching blocks was accelerating, consistent with previous reports. In contrast, matched line length was a decelerating function of free span. The exponent of the free span matching function in the second experiment was slightly smaller than in the first experiment, probably due to uncorrected matching biases in the second experiment.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, N. H. (1974). Algebraic models in perception. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.),Handbook of perception (Vol. 2, pp. 215–298). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Berglund, B., &Olsson, M. J. (1993). Odor-intensity interaction in binary and ternary mixtures.Perception & Psychophysics,53, 475–482.
Bevington, P. R. (1969).Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chan, T.-C., Carello, C., &Turvey, M. T. (1990). Perceiving object width by grasping.Ecological Psychology,2, 1–35.
Collins, A. A., &Gescheider, G. A. (1989). The measurement of loudness in individual children and adults by absolute magnitude estimation and cross-modality matching.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,85, 2012–2021.
Davidon, R. S., &Mather, J. H. (1966). Cross-modal judgments of length.American Journal of Psychology,79, 409–418.
Ekman, G., Berglund, B., Berglund, U., &Lindvall, T. (1967). Perceived intensity of odor as a function of time of adaptation.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,8, 177–186.
Gescheider, G. A. (1988). Psychophysical scaling.Annual Review of Psychology,39, 169–200.
Gescheider, G. A. (1993). What is absolute about absolute scaling? In R. T. Verrillo (Ed.),Sensory research: Multimodal perspectives (pp. 211–232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gogel, W. C., Wist, E. R., &Harker, G. S. (1963). A test of the invariance of the ratio of perceived size to perceived distance.American Journal of Psychology,76, 537–553.
Hellman, R. P., &Zwislocki, J. J. (1963). Monaural loudness function of a 1000-cps tone and internal summation.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,35, 856–865.
Jastrow, J. (1886). The perception of space by disparate senses.Mind,11, 539–554.
Jones, B. (1983). Psychological analyses of haptic and haptic-visual judgements of extent.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,35A, 597–606.
Mai, N., Schreiber, P., &Hermsdörfer, J. (1991). Changes in perceived finger force produced by muscular contractions under isometric and anisometric conditions.Experimental Brain Research,84, 453–460.
Mashhour, M., &Hosman, J. (1968). On the new “psychophysical law”: A validation study.Perception & Psychophysics,3, 367–375.
Poulton, E. C. (1979). Models for biases in judging sensory magnitude.Psychological Bulletin,86, 777–803.
Poulton, E. C. (1989).Bias in quantifying judgments. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roland, P. E., &Ladegaard-Pedersen, H. L. (1977). A quantitative analysis of sensations of tension and kinæsthesia in man: Evidence for a peripherally originating muscular sense and for a sense of effort.Brain,100, 671–692.
Rymer, W. Z., &D’Almeida, A. (1980). Joint position sense: The effects of muscle contraction.Brain,103, 1–22.
Stanley, G. (1966). Haptic and kinesthetic estimates of length.Psychonomic Science,5, 377–378.
Stevens, S. S. (1969). On predicting exponents for cross-modality matches.Perception & Psychophysics,6, 251–256.
Stevens, S. S., &Galanter, E. H. (1957). Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua.Journal of Experimental Psychology,54, 377–411.
Stevens, S. S., &Greenbaum, H. B. (1966). Regression effect in psychophysical judgment.Perception & Psychophysics,1, 439–446.
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.
Stevens, S. S., &Stone, G. (1959). Finger span: Ratio scale, category scale, and JND scale.Journal of Experimental Psychology,57, 91–95.
Teghtsoonian, M., &Teghtsoonian, R. (1965). Seen and felt length.Psychonomic Science,3, 465–466.
Teghtsoonian, M., &Teghtsoonian, R. (1971). How repeatable are Stevens’s power law exponents for individual subjects?Perception & Psychophysics,10, 147–149.
Teghtsoonian, M., &Teghtsoonian, R. (1983). Consistency of individual exponents in cross-modal matching.Perception & Psychophysics,33, 203–214.
Teghtsoonian, R., &Teghtsoonian, M. (1970). Two varieties of perceived length.Perception & Psychophysics,8, 389–392.
Verrillo, R. T. (1983). Stability of line-length estimates using the method of absolute magnitude estimation.Perception & Psychophysics,33, 261–265.
Watson, J. D. G., Colebatch, J. G., &McCloskey, D. I. (1984). Effects of externally imposed elastic loads on the ability to estimate position and force.Behavioral Brain Research,13, 267–271.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was funded by Grant NS27958 from the National Institutes of Health.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Van Doren, C.L. Cross-modality matches of finger span and line length. Perception & Psychophysics 57, 555–568 (1995). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213080
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213080