Perception of local DC and AC electric fields in humans
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
The goal of this study was to address some of the factors that contribute to the human ability to detect the presence of weak electric fields generated by direct current (DC) and alternating current (AC) sources. An exposure chamber allowed us to expose a limited surface of the body (forearm and hand) to DC fields of up to 65 kV/m and AC fields up to a maximum of 35 kV/m (frequency 60 Hz). Perception was examined using a staircase procedure and a rating procedure derived from signal detection theory. Sixteen subjects participated in the experiments, and none detected the local DC fields. In contrast, 9/16 subjects were sensitive to local AC electric fields, although detection thresholds (index of sensitivity, d' = 1.0) were widely variable between subjects. When regional exposure was limited to the dorsal forearm, performance was similar to that seen when the forearm and hand were exposed. In contrast, subjects did not reliably detect the AC electric fields when exposure was limited to the hand (either hairy or glabrous skin), although a minority of subjects (3/9) showed some evidence of detecting fields presented to the glabrous palm. Subjects were unable to detect AC electric fields when the hair was removed from the forearm and hand, suggesting that the evoked sensation is mainly dependent on movement of hair located in the exposed region.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it