4.2 Article

Weber's Illusion and Body Shape: Anisotropy of Tactile Size Perception on the Hand

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0021921

Keywords

touch; anisotropy; Weber's illusion; body representation

Funding

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) [BB/D009529/1]
  2. BBSRC [BB/D009529/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/D009529/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The perceived distance between touches on a single skin surface is larger on regions of high tactile sensitivity than those with lower acuity, an effect known as Weber's illusion. This illusion suggests that tactile size perception involves a representation of the perceived size of body parts preserving characteristics of the somatosensory homunculus. Here, we investigated how body shape is coded within this representation by comparing tactile distances presented in different orientations on the hand. Participants judged which of two tactile distances on the dorsum of their left hand felt larger. One distance was aligned with the proximodistal axis (along the hand), the other with the mediolateral axis (across the hand). Across distances were consistently perceived as larger than along ones. A second experiment showed that this effect is specific to the hairy skin of the hand dorsum and does not occur on glabrous skin of the palm. A third experiment demonstrated that this bias reflects orientation on the hand surface, rather than an eye- or torso-centered reference frame. These results mirror known orientational anisotropies of both tactile acuity and of tactile receptive fields (RFs) of cortical neurons. We suggest that the dorsum of the hand is implicitly represented as wider than it actually is and that the shape of tactile RFs may partly explain distortions of mental body representations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available