MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1947405882 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01581

Vection lies in the brain of the beholder: EEG parameters as an objective measurement of vection

2015· article· en· W1947405882 on OpenAlexaff
Behrang Keshavarz, Jennifer L. Campos, Stefan Berti

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsPsychologyPerceptionElectroencephalographyCognitive psychologyFront (military)Social psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CURRENT TRENDS IN VECTION RESEARCHVection is typically defined as the subjective experience of self-motion in the absence of physical movement through space (Dichgans and Brandt, 1978;Hettinger et al., 2014).Vection is a common phenomenon in simulated environments such as driving/flight simulators, virtual reality (VR) interfaces, or video games (Riecke, 2011).Although vection was first described more than a century ago, the scientific interest in vection has recently been growing (see Frontiers in Psychology, 2015, The Future of Vection for a special issue devoted entirely to vection).Part of the motivation driving the need to better understand the mechanisms underlying vection comes from the fact that quantifying or characterizing vection may be critical to understanding its role in a variety of research approaches, theoretical assumptions, and applications.For example, outstanding questions include: (1) Is vection necessary to equate the behaviors elicited in simulated environments with those elicited in comparable real world environments?(2) Must a user experience true vection to optimize "transfer of training" effects across a variety of applications (e.g., transferability of driver training within a simulator to real world outcomes)?If vection elicits perceptions and behaviors under certain circumstances that are comparable to those elicited during real physical movements through space, the application of vectioninducing techniques could have wide-ranging implications.The biggest challenge in addressing these questions is that there are no well-validated, objective measures that can reliably identify or characterize the experience of vection.Instead, vection is typically measured using nonstandardized subjective rating scales that differ widely from study to study.The need for objective measurements is important for several reasons.For instance, the absence of objective and standardized measurements dramatically hampers the ability to compare across studies and verify the reproducibility of results.Further, any conclusions drawn from vection research (theoretical or applied) are based on a series of assumptions all hinging on the interpretation of qualitative data.In a recent review paper, Palmisano et al. (2015) emphasized the need for objective measurements of vection.In this paper we highlight EEG as a promising technique.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.188
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207