MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134347861 · doi:10.3233/ves-2007-175-607

Effect of field of view on the Levitation Illusion

2008· article· en· W2134347861 on OpenAlex
H. L. Jenkin, James E. Zacher, Michael Jenkin, Charles M. Oman, Laurence R. Harris

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vestibular Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIllusionLevitationObserver (physics)Computer visionTilt (camera)Field of viewComputer scienceField (mathematics)PsychologyArtificial intelligenceOpticsPhysicsCognitive psychologyEngineeringMathematicsElectrical engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supine subjects inside a furnished room in which both they and the room are pitched 90 degrees backwards may experience themselves and the room as upright relative to gravity. This effect is known as the levitation illusion because observers report that their arms feel weightless when extended, and objects hanging in the room seem to "levitate". This illusion is an extreme example of a visually induced illusion of static tilt. Visually induced tilt illusions are commonly experienced in wide-screen movie theatres, flight simulators, and immersive virtual reality systems. For technical reasons an observer's field of view is often constrained in these environments. No studies have documented the effect of field-of-view (FOV) restriction on the incidence of the levitation illusion. Preliminary findings suggest that when concurrently manipulating the FOV and observer position within an environment, the incidence of levitation illusions depends not only on the field of view but also on the visible scene content.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.227
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it