CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 402Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsVisual perception and processing mechanismsMultisensory perception and integration

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Being Barbie: the size of one’s own body determines the perceived size of the world.

Open access
van der Hoort, Björn, Guterstam, Arvid, Ehrsson, H. Henrik·2011·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0020195PMC PMC3102093
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A classical question in philosophy and psychology is if the sense of one's body influences how one visually perceives the world. Several theoreticians have suggested that our own body serves as a fundamental reference in visual perception of sizes and distances, although compelling experimental evidence for this hypothesis is lacking. In contrast, modern textbooks typically explain the perception of object size and distance by the combination of information from different visual cues. Here, we describe full body illusions in which subjects experience the ownership of a doll's body (80 cm or 30 cm) and a giant's body (400 cm) and use these as tools to demonstrate that the size of one's sensed own body directly influences the perception of object size and distance. These effects were quantified in ten separate experiments with complementary verbal, questionnaire, manual, walking, and physiological measures. When participants experienced the tiny body as their own, they perceived objects to be larger and farther away, and when they experienced the large-body illusion, they perceived objects to be smaller and nearer. Importantly, despite identical retinal input, this "body size effect" was greater when the participants experienced a sense of ownership of the artificial bodies compared to a control condition in which ownership was disrupted. These findings are fundamentally important as they suggest a causal relationship between the representations of body space and external space. Thus, our own body size affects how we perceive the world.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0020195

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Experimental set-up. This figure displays the main experimental set-up (A), the four artificial bodies (B), and the image seen by participants during visuo-tactile stimulation (C), the Barbie doll experiment (D), object size estimation (E), and distance estimation (F).
Figure 1 Experimental set-up. This figure displays the main experimental set-up (A), the four artificial bodies (B), and the image seen by participants during visuo-tactile stimulation (C), the Barbie doll experiment (D), object size estimation (E), and distance estimation (F).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Results of Experiments 1–4: Illusory ownership of tiny and huge artificial bodies. Average scores on illusion statements and control statements (see Table S1) after synchronous and asynchronous touching of small body (A) and large body (B), and average threat-evoked SCR after a period of synchronous and asynchronous touching of the small body (C) and the large body (D). * p<0.05, *** p<0.001. Error bars indicate SEM.
Figure 2 Results of Experiments 1–4: Illusory ownership of tiny and huge artificial bodies. Average scores on illusion statements and control statements (see Table S1) after synchronous and asynchronous touching of small body (A) and large body (B), and average threat-evoked SCR after a period of synchronous and asynchronous touching of the small body (C) and the large body (D). * p<0.05, *** p<0.001. Error bars indicate SEM.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Results of Experiment 5: Illusory ownership of the body of a Barbie doll. Average scores for illusion statements, control statements and statements regarding the size of seen objects (see Table S1). ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001. Error bars indicate SEM.
Figure 3 Results of Experiment 5: Illusory ownership of the body of a Barbie doll. Average scores for illusion statements, control statements and statements regarding the size of seen objects (see Table S1). ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001. Error bars indicate SEM.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Results of Experiments 6–8: Own body size effect on size perception. The body size effect on verbal size estimation (A) and hand aperture (B) as a percentage deviation from the average estimation of all trials and the effect of the ownership illusion on hand aperture as a percentage deviation from corresponding asynchronous condition (C). * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001. Error bars indicate SEM.
Figure 4 Results of Experiments 6–8: Own body size effect on size perception. The body size effect on verbal size estimation (A) and hand aperture (B) as a percentage deviation from the average estimation of all trials and the effect of the ownership illusion on hand aperture as a percentage deviation from corresponding asynchronous condition (C). * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001. Error bars indicate SEM.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Results of Experiments 9 and 10: Own body size effect on distance perception. The body-size effect on verbal distance estimation as a percentage deviation from average estimations (A) and as percentage deviation from the corresponding asynchronous condition (B). The body-size effect on walking distance as a percentage deviation from average estimations (C) and as a percentage deviation from the corresponding asynchronous condition (D). * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001. Error bars indicate SEM.
Figure 5 Results of Experiments 9 and 10: Own body size effect on distance perception. The body-size effect on verbal distance estimation as a percentage deviation from average estimations (A) and as percentage deviation from the corresponding asynchronous condition (B). The body-size effect on walking distance as a percentage deviation from average estimations (C) and as a percentage deviation from the corresponding asynchronous condition (D). * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001. Error bars indicate SEM.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 62 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. WC Gogel, 1961, Accommodation and apparent distance., J Psych, 52, 287
  2. HH Ehrsson, 2004, That's my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb., Science, 305, 875, 10.1126/science.1097011 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 402

Related

Metadata

Authors
van der Hoort, B., Guterstam, A., & Ehrsson, H. H.
Affiliations
Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Ehrsson, H. Henrik
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2011-05-25
Volume
6
Issue
5
Pages
e20195
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0020195
PMC
PMC3102093
OpenAlex
W1978014948
Cited by
402
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 10
FWCI
30.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation
  • Stiftelsen för Strategisk Forskning
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
body size, body ownership, body illusions, object size perception, distance perception, visual perception, body schema, body space, external space, self-perception
MeSH terms
Adult, Body Image, Female, Humans, Illusions, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Size Perception, Visual Perception, Body Size, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review