MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988517662 · doi:10.1089/109493103322278736

A Platform for Combining Virtual Reality Experiments with Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

2003· article· en· W1988517662 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard Mraz, James Hong, Genevieve Quintin, Richard Staines, William E. McIlroy, Konstantine K. Zakzanis, Simon J. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueCyberPsychology & Behavior · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsFunctional magnetic resonance imagingVirtual realityHuman–computer interactionComputer scienceWired gloveMagnetic resonance imagingFunctional Brain ImagingNeuroimagingNeurosciencePsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How the brain functions during behavioural tasks conducted in virtual reality (VR) remains largely unresolved. This issue is extremely important both in terms of establishing the benefits of VR through basic science, as well as for future optimization of tasks conducted in VR environments. Here, the authors describe their current work to develop a testing platform for conducting VR experiments that can be probed by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain activity. Examples involving human spatial navigation and data glove operation illustrate the technical feasibility of the approach and introduce thought-provoking observations of brain activation patterns. Future research directions for combined use of VR and fMRI are also discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations50
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCyberPsychology & BehaviorSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207