MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139328349 · doi:10.1163/187847511x570817

Simulated Viewpoint Jitter Shakes Sensory Conflict Accounts of Vection

2011· review· en· W2139328349 on OpenAlex

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

VenueSeeing and Perceiving · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsJitterIllusionSensory systemPsychologyPerceptionMotion sicknessMotion (physics)Vestibular systemMotion perceptionOptical illusionCognitive psychologyCommunicationNeuroscienceComputer scienceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensory conflict has been used to explain the way we perceive and control our self-motion, as well as the aetiology of motion sickness. However, recent research on simulated viewpoint jitter provides a strong challenge to one core prediction of these theories -- that increasing sensory conflict should always impair visually induced illusions of self-motion (known as vection). These studies show that jittering self-motion displays (thought to generate significant and sustained visual-vestibular conflict) actually induce superior vection to comparable non-jittering displays (thought to generate only minimal/transient sensory conflict). Here we review viewpoint jitter effects on vection, postural sway, eye-movements and motion sickness, and relate them to recent behavioural and neurophysiological findings. It is shown that jitter research provides important insights into the role that sensory interaction plays in self-motion perception.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.160 · 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