Perception of inclination as a function of eye and head inclination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The experiment was designed to investigate the influence of the vertical orientation of the eyes and of the head on judgments of the inclination of visual stimuli about a horizontal axis. One stimulus was a 50 cm-long vertical luminous line. Detection of the inclination of such a line requires registration of binocular disparity, inclination of the eyes in the head, and inclination of the head to gravity. The second stimulus was a textured large surface. This stimulus provides extra information in the form of perspective and the overall pattern of disparity. A fixation point was placed at the centre of each stimulus at a distance of 50 cm and both stimuli were viewed in black surroundings. By turning a knob the observer rotated the initially vertical stimulus about a frontal horizontal axis passing through the fixation point until the stimulus appeared vertical with respect to gravity. Measurements were made with the line and textured surface in four conditions. (1) Head vertical, stimulus at eye level. (2) Head vertical, stimulus moved down 30°. (3) Head tilted back 30° around the interocular axis, stimulus at eye level. (4) Head tilted forward 30°, stimulus moved down 30°. When the line was at an angle to the visual axis, as in conditions 2 and 4, it was perceived as rotated towards the gaze normal by several degrees. When the line was gaze normal but viewed with inclined head, the settings indicated that head inclination and/or eye elevation was underestimated, more so by some subjects than by others. Both these effects were greatly reduced when the subjects viewed the textured stimulus. When the eyes are elevated or depressed in the head the eyes manifest incylovergence and excylovergence, respectively. If cyclovergence, and it attendant cyclodisparity, had any effect it was overridden by the factors mentioned above. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".