Vection in Depth during Treadmill Walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vection has typically been induced in stationary observers (ie conditions providing visual-only information about self-motion). Two recent studies have examined vection during active treadmill walking--one reported that treadmill walking in the same direction as the visually simulated self-motion impaired vection (Onimaru et al, 2010 Journal of Vision 10(7):860), the other reported that it enhanced vection (Seno et al, 2011 Perception 40 747-750; Seno et al, 2011 Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 73 1467-1476). Our study expands on these earlier investigations of vection during observer active movement. In experiment 1 we presented radially expanding optic flow and compared the vection produced in stationary observers with that produced during walking forward on a treadmill at a 'matched' speed. Experiment 2 compared the vection induced by forward treadmill walking while viewing expanding or contracting optic flow with that induced by viewing playbacks of these same displays while stationary. In both experiments subjects' tracked head movements were either incorporated into the self-motion displays (as simulated viewpoint jitter) or simply ignored. We found that treadmill walking always reduced vection (compared with stationary viewing conditions) and that simulated viewpoint jitter always increased vection (compared with constant velocity displays). These findings suggest that while consistent visual-vestibular information about self-acceleration increases vection, biomechanical self-motion information reduces this experience (irrespective of whether it is consistent or not with the visual input).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".