Visual and Kinaesthetic Judgments of Length

Raffel, Gertrude

doi:10.2307/1415752

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are, however, problems with this interpretation, for in many ways visual and haptic channels process spatial information differently. It has long been known (Raffel, 1934) that haptic estimates of linear extent can be smaller than the corresponding visual estimates by as much as 40%. In fact, because matching a visual standard with active movements involves both proprioceptive inflow and reafferences, Jones (1973) argued that only judgments based on passive movements can be compared with visual judgments.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceiving and tracking kinesthetic stimuli: Further evidence of motor–perceptual interactions.

Viviani¹,

Baud-Bovy²,

Redolfi³

1997

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments pursued previous studies (P. Viviani & P. Mounoud, 1990; P. Viviani & N. Stucchi, 1989) on motor-perceptual interactions. The right arm of blindfolded participants was moved passively along elliptic trajectories. Kinematics was either coherent or at variance with the relation (two-thirds power law) observed in active movements. In Experiment 1 participants compared the horizontal and vertical extent of the ellipses. Kinematics affected aspect ratio discrimination: The direction along which the movement decelerated was subjectively stretched. In Experiment 2 participants used the left arm to reproduce in real time the movement of the right arm. The trajectories of the left arm presented a stretch similar to the perceptual illusion demonstrated in Experiment 1. Between-arm asynchrony suggests that the motor control system cannot use kinesthetic information that is at variance with the flow of reafferences normally associated with voluntary movements. It is argued that these interactions occur at the level of a central amodal representation of the stimuli.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceiving and tracking kinesthetic stimuli: Further evidence of motor–perceptual interactions.

Viviani¹,

Baud-Bovy²,

Redolfi³

1997

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of Experiment 4 supply evidence relevant for the question raised by Raffel (1936), which was not directly addressed in this study: What is the role of rate of stimuli presentation on the perception of size? Even the fastest movement takes more time than a glance ofthe line, and that may be the crucial difference between kinesthetic and visual information about length.…”

Section: Variable Mismatchmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…The motivation for most of these studies was testing the implications ofthe theories of intermodal development (for a review, see Hatwell, 1990 Visual Stimuli Presentation In Jastrows (1886) study, lines drawn on a paper were shown through the frame; a series of lines was presented, each differing in length from its neighbor; and subjects marked an appropriate length on the long line drawn on a paper. In Raffel's (1936) study, subjects were shown a piece ofcardboard. In Laszlo et als (1994) study, lines were drawn in random positions on the board.…”

Section: Awareness Of the Mismatchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Size perception by vision and kinesthesia

Seizova-Cajić

1998

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 em) 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.

show abstract