The use of visual and nonvisual cues in updating the perceived position of the world during translation
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
During self-motion the perceived positions of objects remain fixed in perceptual space. This requires that their perceived positions are updated relative to the viewer. Here we assess the roles of visual and non-visual information in this spatial updating. To investigate the role of visual cues observers sat in an enclosed, immersive, virtual environment formed by six rear-projection screens. A simulated room was presented stereographically and shifted relative to the observer. A playing card, whose movement was phase-locked to the room, floated in front of the subject who judged if this card was displaced more or less than the room. Surprisingly, perceived stability occurred not when the card’s movement matched the room’s displacement but when perspective alignment was maintained and parallax between the card and the room was removed. The role of the complementary non-visual cues was investigated by physically moving subjects in the dark. Subjects judged whether a floating target was displaced more or less than if it were earth stable. To be judged as earth-stationary the target had to move in the same direction as the observer: more so if the movement was passive. We conclude that both visual and non-visual cues to self-motion and active involvement in the movement are simultaneously required for veridical spatial updating.
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 | 0.001 | 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