Self Recognition versus Recognition of others by Biological Motion: Viewpoint-Dependent Effects
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
We investigated the influence of viewing angle on performance in recognising the identity of one's own person and familiar individuals such as friends or colleagues from walking patterns. Viewpoint-dependent recognition performance was tested in two groups of twelve persons who knew each other very well. Participants' motion data were acquired by recording their walking patterns in three-dimensional space with the use of a motion capture system. Size-normalised point-light displays of biological motion of these walking patterns, including one's own, were presented to the same group members on a computer screen in frontal view, half-profile view, and profile view. Observers were requested to assign the person's name to the individual gait pattern. No feedback was given. Whereas recognition performance of one's own walking patterns was viewpoint independent, recognition rate for other familiar individuals was better for frontal and half-profile view than for profile view. These findings are discussed in the context of the theory of common coding of motor and visual body representations.
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) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
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