Gain and phase of perceived virtual rotation evoked by electrical vestibular stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) evokes a perception of rotation; however, very few quantitative data exist on the matter. We performed psychophysical experiments on virtual rotations experienced when binaural bipolar electrical stimulation is applied over the mastoids. We also performed analogous real whole body yaw rotation experiments, allowing us to compare the frequency response of vestibular perception with (real) and without (virtual) natural mechanical stimulation of the semicircular canals. To estimate the gain of vestibular perception, we measured direction discrimination thresholds for virtual and real rotations. Real direction discrimination thresholds decreased at higher frequencies, confirming multiple previous studies. Conversely, virtual direction discrimination thresholds increased at higher frequencies, implying low-pass filtering of the virtual perception process occurring potentially anywhere between afferent transduction and cortical responses. To estimate the phase of vestibular perception, participants manually tracked their perceived position during sinusoidal virtual and real kinetic stimulation. For real rotations, perceived velocity was approximately in phase with actual velocity across all frequencies. Perceived virtual velocity was in phase with the GVS waveform at low frequencies (0.05 and 0.1 Hz). As frequency was increased to 1 Hz, the phase of perceived velocity advanced relative to the GVS waveform. Therefore, at low frequencies GVS is interpreted as an angular velocity signal and at higher frequencies GVS becomes interpreted increasingly as an angular position signal. These estimated gain and phase spectra for vestibular perception are a first step toward generating well-controlled virtual vestibular percepts, an endeavor that may reveal the usefulness of GVS in the areas of clinical assessment, neuroprosthetics, and virtual reality.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".