The cheerleader who won’t shake her pom pons.
Int J Orthod Milwaukee. 2008 Spring;19(1):37.
Why Barbie is perceived as beautiful.
Percept Mot Skills. 1997 Aug;85(1):363-74.
Why Barbie feels heavier than Ken: the influence of size-based expectancies and social cues on the illusory perception of weight.
Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1109-25. Epub 2007 Jun 27.
Math is hard, Barbie said.
Newsweek. 2008 Oct 27;152(17):57.
Mathematicians talk tough to new barbie.
[No authors listed]
Science. 1992 Oct 16;258(5081):396.
Can we keep up with Barbie?
CDS Rev. 2009 May-Jun;102(3):48.
Slip an extra locust on the barbie?
BMJ. 2013 May 20;346:f3293. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f3293.
The young and the clueless.
Bunker KA, Kram KE, Ting S.
Harv Bus Rev. 2002 Dec;80(12):80-7, 133.
Older male vs. younger female: a lawsuit waiting to happen.
J Mich Dent Assoc. 2010 Dec;92(12):20.
Ideal female brow aesthetics.
Griffin GR, Kim JC.
Clin Plast Surg. 2013 Jan;40(1):147-55. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2012.07.003. Epub 2012 Sep 8. Review.
Are there pit bulls with lipstick in your midst?
Tar Heel Nurse. 2009 Jul-Sep;71(3):13-4.
NIH peer review reform–change we need, or lipstick on a pig?
Fang FC, Casadevall A.
Infect Immun. 2009 Mar;77(3):929-32. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01567-08.
Do cosmetics enhance female Caucasian facial attractiveness?
Mulhern R, Fieldman G, Hussey T, Lévêque JL, Pineau P.
Int J Cosmet Sci. 2003 Aug;25(4):199-205. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-2494.2003.00188.x.
PMID: 18494902 [PubMed]
Improving lip wrinkles: lipstick-related image analysis.
Ryu JS, Park SG, Kwak TJ, Chang MY, Park ME, Choi KH, Sung KH, Shin HJ, Lee CK, Kang YS, Yoon MS, Rang MJ, Kim SJ.
Skin Res Technol. 2005 Aug;11(3):157-64.
Lipstick and pearls.
Surgery. 2002 Jun;131(6):663-4.
Being Barbie: the size of one’s own body determines the perceived size of the world.
van der Hoort B, Guterstam A, Ehrsson HH.
PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e20195. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020195. Epub 2011 May 25.
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.