DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
Discoblog
« Husband Caught Spying on Wife’s Email Charged With Hacking
Fridge of the Future Predicts We Will Be Lazy »

NCBI ROFL: No way. According to my tongue, that hole is definitely wider. (That’s what she said.)

4164139648_c845f158e5Differences in the oral size illusions produced by cross-modality matching of peg and hole stimuli by the tongue and fingers in humans.

“Individuals overestimate the diameter of 1-mm-deep stimulus holes presented to the tongue when they use their fingers to select a hole of matching diameter. The aim here was to determine whether the oral size illusion evident for 1-mm-deep holes would also occur with 1-mm-high pegs of similar diameters. The illusion was studied in 24 individuals who were blindfolded during the trials. The two sets of test stimuli were (a) 5 cylindrical pegs (1 mm high) and (b) five circular holes (1 mm deep), each of 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5 mm dia. The stimuli were held to the mouth with one hand, while the fingers of the free hand were used to select a matching object from a comparator series of either 1-mm-deep holes or 1-mm-high pegs ranging from 2.0 to 18 mm dia. Each stimulus was presented four times in a random order. The participants overestimated the diameter of the 1-mm-deep stimulus holes when these were matched with 1-mm-deep comparator holes. However, there was no illusion with four out of five 1-mm-high stimulus pegs when matched with 1-mm-high comparator pegs. In the ‘reverse’ experiment, there was no illusion with four out of five stimulus holes when these were matched with 1-mm-high comparator pegs. However, an illusion was evident for all the 1-mm-high stimulus pegs when these were matched with the 1-mm-deep comparator holes. Regardless of the nature of the stimulus (‘hole’ or ‘peg’), a mismatch between the stimulus and comparator was consistently seen only when the fingers probed comparator holes. The oral size illusion is not due to any intrinsic differences in the sensitivities of the tongue or fingers. Rather, the illusion is due to the inability of the fingertip to access small comparator holes.”

peg_hole_tongue_illusion

Photo: flickr/mi55er

Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Stick your tongue through a fork. Trust me, it’ll be cool.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: What the cluck? Chickens can see optical illusions, and imprint on them.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Effects of dining on tongue endurance and swallowing-related outcomes.

WTF is NCBI ROFL? Read our FAQ!

Share

December 27th, 2010 7:00 PM by ncbi rofl in NCBI ROFL, WTF? | 0 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >





    • About the Blog

      Discoblog is DISCOVER's compendium of quirky, funny, and surprising science news from the edge of the known universe. It's written by Veronique Greenwood and Valerie Ross. Email tips and suggestions to vgreenwood [at] discovermagazine [dot] com.

      Discoblog also includes the daily feature NCBI ROFL, in which two prone-to-distraction grad students post real scientific articles with funny subjects. Email your tips to ncbirofl [at] gmail.com. Follow the ROFL feed here.

    • Twitter

      Follow @discovermag
    • Facebook

    • Twidget

      Add Tweets
    • Archives

      Archives

      • May 2012
      • April 2012
      • March 2012
      • February 2012
      • January 2012
      • December 2011
      • November 2011
      • October 2011
      • September 2011
      • August 2011
      • July 2011
      • June 2011
      • May 2011
      • April 2011
      • March 2011
      • February 2011
      • January 2011
      • December 2010
      • November 2010
      • October 2010
      • September 2010
      • August 2010
      • July 2010
      • June 2010
      • May 2010
      • April 2010
      • March 2010
      • February 2010
      • January 2010
      • December 2009
      • November 2009
      • October 2009
      • September 2009
      • August 2009
      • July 2009
      • June 2009
      • May 2009
      • April 2009
      • March 2009
      • February 2009
      • January 2009
      • December 2008
      • November 2008
      • October 2008
      • September 2008
      • August 2008
      • July 2008
      • June 2008
      • May 2008
      • April 2008
      • March 2008
      • February 2008
      • January 2008
      • December 2007
      • November 2007
      • October 2007
      • September 2007
      • August 2007
      • July 2007
      • June 2007
      • May 2007
      • April 2007
      • February 2007
      • January 2007
      • December 2006
      • November 2006
      • October 2006
      • September 2006


  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us