Perceptual stability during active head movements orthogonal and parallel to gravity
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 measured how much the visual world could be moved during various head rotations and translations and still be perceived as visually stable. Using this as a monitor of how well subjects know about their own movement, we compared performance in different directions relative to gravity. For head rotations, we compared the range of visual motion judged compatible with a stable environment while rotating around an axis orthogonal to gravity (where rotation created a rotating gravity vector across the otolith macula), with judgements made when rotation was around an earth-vertical axis. For translations, we compared the corresponding range of visual motion when translation was parallel to gravity (when imposed accelerations added to or subtracted from gravity), with translations orthogonal to gravity. Ten subjects wore a head-mounted display and made active head movements at 0.5 Hz that were monitored by a low-latency mechanical tracker. Subjects adjusted the ratio between head and image motion until the display appeared perceptually stable. For neither rotation nor translation were there any differences in judgements of perceptual stability that depended on the direction of the movement with respect to the direction of gravity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it