title: The role of expectancies in the size-weight illusion: a review of theoretical and empirical arguments and a new explanation.
abstract: The size-weight illusion (SWI) refers to the phenomenon that objects that are objectively equal in weight but different in size or volume are perceived to differ in weight, such that smaller objects feel heavier than larger ones. This article reviews studies trying to support three different viewpoints with respect to the role of expectancies in causing the SWI. The first viewpoint argues for a crucial role; the second admits a role, yet without seeing consequences for sensorimotor processes; and the third denies any causal role for expectancies at all. A new explanation of the SWI is proposed that can integrate the different arguments. A distinctive feature of the new explanation is that it recognizes the causal influence of expectancies, yet combines this with certain reactive and direct behavioral consequences of perceiving size differences that are independent of experience-based expectancies, and that normally result in the adaptive application of forces to lift or handle differently sized objects. The new account explains why the illusion is associated with the repeated generation of inappropriate lifting forces (which can, however, be modified through extensive training), as well as why it depends on continuous visual exposure to size cues, appears at an early age, and is cognitively impenetrable.
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, CAPHRI, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands, a.dijker@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
authors.forename: Anton J M
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Dijker
mesh_terms: D004192:Discrimination, Psychological; D006801:Humans; D009903:Optical Illusions; D012718:Set, Psychology; D012858:Size Perception; D014892:Weight Perception
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1993 Mar;53(3):315-24
references.pmid: 8483695
references.citation: Percept Mot Skills. 1977 Feb;44(1):299-305
references.pmid: 840602
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2010 Aug;205(2):283-8
references.pmid: 20614213
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 1993 Oct;84(1):29-40
references.pmid: 8237454
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol. 1969 Nov;21(4):346-55
references.pmid: 5378275
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2008 Nov 25;18(22):1742-7
references.pmid: 19026545
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2009 Jan 13;19(1):R23-5
references.pmid: 19138585
references.citation: Somatosens Mot Res. 1998;15(3):190-9
references.pmid: 9874518
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 2010 Mar;103(3):1518-31
references.pmid: 20089821
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Jun;24(3):830-46
references.pmid: 9627419
references.citation: Somatosens Mot Res. 1997;14(3):189-202
references.pmid: 9402649
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2010;57(6):462-9
references.pmid: 20382626
references.citation: PLoS One. 2010 Mar 15;5(3):e9709
references.pmid: 20300575
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 2009 Dec;102(6):3111-8
references.pmid: 19793879
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1988 Oct;44(4):309-12
references.pmid: 3226877
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1999 Nov;61(8):1564-76
references.pmid: 10598470
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol. 1970 May;22(2):318-28
references.pmid: 5431405
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2004 Jul;66(5):731-42
references.pmid: 15495899
references.citation: Child Dev. 1964 Mar;35:91-107
references.pmid: 14128822
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1999 Nov;61(8):1681-5
references.pmid: 10598479
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 2006 Jun;95(6):3887-92
references.pmid: 16641383
references.citation: PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54709
references.pmid: 23372759
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1986 Jul;100(1):29-42
references.pmid: 2942958
references.citation: Evol Biol. 2011 Jun;38(2):124-143
references.pmid: 21654906
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1109-25
references.pmid: 17599820
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 1988;71(1):59-71
references.pmid: 3416958
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2000 Jul;3(7):737-41
references.pmid: 10862708
references.citation: Adv Neurol. 1983;39:151-67
references.pmid: 6229157
references.citation: Nature. 1966 Nov 5;212(5062):650
references.pmid: 5971700
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2000 Dec;135(3):405-10
references.pmid: 11146818
references.citation: Percept Mot Skills. 2012 Aug;115(1):120-41
references.pmid: 23033750
references.citation: Cognition. 1999 Dec 7;73(2):B17-26
references.pmid: 10580163
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 1992;90(2):399-403
references.pmid: 1397154
references.citation: Perception. 1998;27(2):193-201
references.pmid: 9709451
references.citation: Science. 1971 Feb 26;171(3973):818-20
references.pmid: 5541165
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1989 Aug;15(3):507-28
references.pmid: 2527959
references.citation: Can J Exp Psychol. 2001 Jun;55(2):87-95
references.pmid: 11433790
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Feb;24(1):35-48
references.pmid: 9483823
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1996 Feb;22(1):213-32
references.pmid: 8742263
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 1999 Aug;22(4):577-609; discussion 610-60
references.pmid: 11301525
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Oct;24(5):939-73; discussion 973-1031
references.pmid: 12239892
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 1991;83(3):477-82
references.pmid: 2026190
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1980 Jan;87(1):1-51
references.pmid: 7375607
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 1967 Sep;5(3):362-71
references.pmid: 6062946
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1983 Apr;33(4):391-8
references.pmid: 6866703