Behavioral and electrophysiological measures of the body inversion effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous behavioral and electrophysiological studies examining the body inversion effect, where inversion of a body stimulus reduces its recognition, suggested that information regarding human bodies is processed configurally. However, few studies to date have examined how the magnitude of the body inversion effect may be impacted by varying degrees of configural information present in a stimulus of interest. In the current study, upright and inverted body stimuli were presented across three body posture conditions, the whole body, piecemeal body (without head and trunk), and random body posture conditions, while response times, error rates, and event-related potentials were recorded. Behavioral measures and assessment of the N170 component, particularly at occipital-temporal site, revealed a robust difference between upright and inverted postures for both the whole body and piecemeal body posture conditions, which was not observed in the random body posture condition. The behavioral measure showed less errors and faster reaction times for upright compared with inverted orientation; however, the N170 component only showed typical effect of orientation (more negative and more delayed peak in waveform for the inverted compared with upright orientation) in the left hemisphere. The magnitude and direction of these differences were comparable for whole body and piecemeal postures. Overall, these results were consistent with the notion that it is the first-order information of body posture rather than the presence of the head (and trunk) that determines the body inversion effect.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".