The effects of optical magnification/minimization on distance estimation by stationary and walking observers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When moving through space, both optic flow and locomotor (proprioceptive/efference copy, vestibular) information can be used to judge the extent of a traveled distance. To better understand how each of these cues is used to estimate the magnitude of self-motion, it is important to dissociate the relative contributions of each when both are available in natural, cue-rich environments. This study created a conflict between visual and locomotor distance cues by either magnifying (2.0×) or minimizing (0.5×) the information contained in the optic array using spectacle-mounted lenses. The experiment took place in a large, open, outdoor field with few landmarks in the distant periphery. Subjects viewed a static target in the distance (6, 8, 10, 12m) and reproduced this distance by walking. Three optical manipulations (OMs: 2.0×, 1.0×, 0.5×) occurred either: A) during the initially learned visual preview, B) during the walked response, or C) during both learning and responding (same OM in each phase). When wearing the 2.0× lenses during the visual preview subjects produced estimates that were shorter than those produced when wearing the 1.0× lenses. The reverse effect was observed for the 0.5× lenses (significantly longer). Although these under/overestimations of static visual distance are significant in the predicted direction, the magnitude of the effect is less than expected considering the specifications of the lenses. In contrast, when the OM occurred during the walked response there were no lens-related effects, thus suggesting a reliance on locomotor cues. When the OM occurred during both learning and responding, lens-related effects were again observed in the expected directions, although were not as strong as when the OM occurred during the visual preview alone. Overall, the results suggest that locomotor information can be used effectively to reproduce a learned visual distance and appears to be the dominant cue when walking with magnified/minimized optic flow.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".