MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2568056461 · doi:10.1167/16.12.1203

Vection is facilitated by bone conducted vibration and galvanic vestibular stimulation

2016· article· en· W2568056461 on OpenAlexaff
Séamas Weech, Yaroslav Konar, Nikolaus F. Troje

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalvanic vestibular stimulationVestibular systemMotion sicknessAudiologyMultisensory integrationVisual fieldStimulationLatency (audio)PerceptionPsychologyMotion (physics)Simulator sicknessVirtual realityComputer visionComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceMedicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The illusory sense of self-motion that can occur when the visual field moves coherently ('vection') has revealed key insights into how sensory information is integrated. In the natural environment, moving through space generates an immediate perception that we are in motion. In the case of illusory self-motion, there are delays in the region of 5-10 seconds between seeing the visual field move and the feeling of vection. It has been suggested that this delay occurs due to the lack of concurrent vestibular signals accompanying visual motion onset. Any reduction in this delay could improve virtual reality (VR) immersiveness and potentially reduce 'simulator-sickness'. Researchers have attempted to reduce visual-vestibular mismatch using a technique that applies electrical stimulation to the vestibular organs, known as galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS). Applying GVS can modulate vection and can visibly reduce nausea in VR. However, GVS is an invasive stimulation method that requires significant expertise to use appropriately. Here, we tested two techniques with the potential to provide similar benefits to GVS that are minimally invasive: chair vibration, and bone conducted vibration (BCV) applied to the mastoid processes. We examined vection magnitude and latency for wide field visual rotations, applying transient stimulation either concurrently or asynchronously with the start of visual motion. We found that both GVS and BCV, but not chair vibration, reduced vection latency compared to control when applied at the same time as visual motion onset. This difference vanished when stimulation and visual motion onset were asynchronous. Inspection of vection magnitude responses indicated no consistent differences across conditions. While we had used only roll for visual motion in the first experiment, a second experiment confirmed the same effects for yaw and pitch rotation. We therefore propose BCV as a promising candidate for reducing simulator sickness and increasing immersiveness in virtual environments. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVestibular and auditory disorders→French-language works237,207→