Prior to a second interaction, eyespots of familiar size-matched combatants were manipulated to reverse information conveyed by this visual signal.
The room that we used was a seldom-used classroom, with which very few of our participants were familiar, draped with black felt to obscure familiar size and texture information.
Yet the 228i is a familiar size for a BMW, with familiar proportions and handling characteristics.
Mean parameter estimates for each region were entered into separate 2 × 2 × 2 analyses of variance (ANOVAs) including Familiarity (familiar, unfamiliar), Size (same-size, vary-size), and Repetition (same-identity, different-identity) as repeated measures factors.
The experiment used a 2 × 2 × 2 repeated measures design, examining the effect of Familiarity (familiar, unfamiliar), Image Size (same-size, vary-size), and Repetition (same-identity and different-identity).
Furthermore, the influence of this familiar-size cue can be successfully eliminated by occluding the body, because there were no effects of body size in the control conditions of Experiment 1 or Experiment 2 (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Their only weapon, in this case, apart from a knife of familiar and domestic size, is a camera and every media outlet in the world.
We found that the own-body size survived both of these manipulations and can, therefore, not be explained by familiar-size cues from the artificial body.
Other cues are light and shade, overlapping of contours, and relative sizes of familiar objects.
Thus, it seems that the direct visual familiar-size cue of the body works independently of the own-body-size effect (defined by the body size × body ownership interaction) in affecting the perceived size of objects in the world.
Taken together, the results of the meta-analysis support our conclusion that the very experience of one's own body influences visual spatial perception independently of the body as a visual familiar-size cue.
