Visual Orientation in a Mirror World Tilted 90°
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".