Perception of Self-Tilt in a True and Illusory Vertical Plane
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A tilted furnished room can induce strong visual reorientation illusions in stationary subjects. Supine subjects may perceive themselves upright when the room is tilted 90 degrees so that the visual polarity axis is kept aligned with the subject. This 'upright illusion' was used to induce roll tilt in a truly horizontal, but perceptually vertical, plane. A semistatic tilt profile was applied, in which the tilt angle gradually changed from 0 degrees to 90 degrees, and vice versa. This method produced larger illusory self-tilt than usually found with static tilt of a visual scene. Ten subjects indicated self-tilt by setting a tactile rod to perceived vertical. Six of them experienced the upright illusion and indicated illusory self-tilt with an average gain of about 0.5. This value is smaller than with true self-tilt (0.8), but comparable to the gain of visually induced self-tilt in erect subjects. Apparently, the contribution of nonvisual cues to gravity was independent of the subject's orientation to gravity itself. It therefore seems that the gain of visually induced self-tilt is smaller because of lacking, rather than conflicting, nonvisual cues. A vector analysis is used to discuss the results in terms of relative sensory weightings.
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.
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) | 0.002 | 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 it