Relative role of visual and non-visual cues in determining the direction of “up”: Experiments in the York tilted room facility
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
Perceiving a direction as "up" is fundamental to human performance and perception. Astronauts in microgravity frequently experience reorientation illusions in which they, or their world, appear to flip and 'up' becomes arbitrarily redefined. This paper assesses the relative importance of visual cues in determining the perceived up direction. In the absence of information about the origin of illumination, people interpret surface structure by assuming that the direction of illumination is from above. Here we exploit this phenomenon to measure the influence of head and body orientation, gravity and visual cues on the perceived up direction. Fifteen subjects judged the shape of shaded circles presented in various orientations. The circles were shaded in such a way that when the shading was compatible with light coming from above, the circle appeared as a convex hemisphere. Therefore, by finding which shaded circle appeared most convex, we can deduce the direction regarded as "up". The different cues contributing to this percept were separated by varying both the orientation of the subject and the surrounding room relative to gravity. The relative significance of each cue may be of use in spacecraft interior design to help reduce the incidence of visual reorientation illusions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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