The effect of lunar gravity on perception: Ambient visual cues have less effect on orientation judgements than they do under normal gravity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION We previously reported that during the brief periods of near-zero microgravity of parabolic flight there was a significant reduction in the influence of a tilted background visual scene on the perceived orientation of a foreground object (Dyde et al., 2006, http://journalofvision.org/6/6/183/). This was unexpected, as removing the gravity cue should result in a relative increase of the influence of the remaining cues. Is there something special about zero gravity, or would just reducing gravity have a similar effect? METHODS Parabolic flights were used to create periods of lunar (one sixth of earth's) gravity. Six subjects experienced an average of 38 parabolas, i.e. approximately 13 minutes of reduced gravity each. Control data were collected during periods of 1g level flight and during the 2g phases of parabolic flight. Perceived orientation was measured using the OCHART protocol (Dyde et al., 2006, Exp. Brain Res. 173: 612) in which a tilted character is identified as either a ‘p’ or ‘d’ to find its orientation of maximum ambiguity from which the perceptual upright (PU) is calculated. The effect of a visual background on the orientation of PU was measured using two backgrounds tilted +/− 112.5°. The difference in the orientation of PU between the two backgrounds is defined as the “visual effect.” RESULTS The visual effect was significantly smaller during lunar gravity than during level flight. The visual effect was also smaller during the 2g phases of parabolic flight than during level flight. DISCUSSION Modelling these data in terms of a vector sum of gravity, visual and body directions, suggests a decrease in the weighting accorded to ambient visual cues when making orientation judgements. Such a reduction is not predicted by cue combination theory.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".