Perceptual stability during active and passive head translation: variations with direction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world in which we live normally appears perceptually stable as we move around during both active movements and when moving passively, as for example when traveling as a passenger. To achieve such stability, the visual motion experienced has to be compatible with that expected to be associated with the self motion. This in turn requires knowledge about the self motion. During active head movement, information is derived from an efference copy of motor commands as well as vestibular and other proprioceptive sources. Efference copy cues are not available during passive motion. Are there differences between the perception of visual stability under active and passive motion? In previous studies we measured the amount of visual motion needed for the world to appear stable during active head motion and found that ∼1.5 times more visual movement was required than was geometrically necessary. Naso-occipital motion was closer to veridical than other directions (Jaekl et al., 2002, J. Vis. 2(7), 508a). The present study measured the visual motion needed to appear stable during passive motion. Subjects were translated passively at 0.5 Hz while sitting on a cart manually pulled against a powerful spring. Subject motion was naso-occipital, inter-aural or in between. Subjects wore a head-mounted display and were positioned in the centre of a virtual spherical world, radius 1m, which was updated in response to head movement monitored by a mechanical tracker. Subjects varied the ratio between head and image motion until the display appeared perceptually stable. During passive translation, even more visual motion was required to ensure the appearance of moving within an earth stable environment than when motion was active, often needing as much as twice the geometrically required value. Passive naso-occipital motion was again closer to requiring the geometrically correct amount. The experiments help establish the role of efference copy in the perception of self motion.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".