Piloting systems reset path integration systems during position estimation.
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
During locomotion, individuals can determine their positions with either idiothetic cues from movement (path integration systems) or visual landmarks (piloting systems). This project investigated how these 2 systems interact in determining humans' positions. In 2 experiments, participants studied the locations of 5 target objects and 1 single landmark. They walked a path after the targets and the landmark had been removed and then replaced the targets at the end of the path. Participants' position estimations were calculated based on the replaced targets' locations (Mou & Zhang, 2014). In Experiment 1, participants walked a 2-leg path. The landmark reappeared in a different location during or after walking the second leg. The results showed that participants' position estimations followed idiothetic cues in the former case, but the displaced landmark in the latter case. In Experiment 2, participants saw the displaced landmark when they reached the end of the second leg and then walked a third leg without the view of the landmark. Participants were asked or not to point to 1 of the targets before they walked the third leg. The results showed that the initial position of the third leg was still influenced by the displaced landmark in the former case, but was determined by idiothetic cues in the latter case. These results suggest that the path integration system works dynamically and the piloting system resets the path integration system when people judge their positions in the presence of conflicting piloting cues. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it