MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998319521 · doi:10.1068/p5151

Visual Orientation in a Mirror World Tilted 90°

2005· article· en· W1998319521 on OpenAlexaff
Ian P. Howard, Gang Hu, Rebecca Saxe, James E. Zacher

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIllusionOptical illusionOpticsLevitationPsychologyBall (mathematics)Polarity (international relations)Computer visionCommunicationPhysicsComputer scienceGeometryCognitive psychologyMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previously, we showed that many supine observers in a furnished room tilted 90 degrees perceive themselves and the room as upright. We called this the "levitation illusion" because the arms feel weightless when held out from the body. We now report that a familiar scene viewed by supine observers through a mirror at 45 degrees appears vertical when, optically, it is horizontal and above the head. However, the body feels pitched upright only partially. This visual-righting effect, like the levitation illusion, is due to the polarity axis of the scene being accepted as vertical even in the presence of conflicting information from the gravity sense organs. In experiment 1 we tested the potency of objects containing either intrinsic polarity (due to familiar tops and bottoms) or extrinsic polarity (due to support relationships) to generate a visual-righting illusion. To almost all observers, a blank surface seen in the mirror appeared like a ceiling. A scene containing an object with intrinsic polarity, such as a chair or person, seen in the mirror appeared vertical to almost all observers. A scene containing a pair of objects with only extrinsic polarity, such as a ball on a shelf (but not a ball under a shelf), also appeared vertical to most observers. In experiment 2 we found that a polarised scene was more likely to produce a visual-righting illusion when it was arranged as a view through a window rather than as a picture inside a room.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.310 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207