The effect of long-term exposure to microgravity on the perception of upright
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Going into space is a disorienting experience. Many studies have looked at sensory functioning in space but the multisensory basis of orientation has not been systematically investigated. Here, we assess how prolonged exposure to microgravity affects the relative weighting of visual, gravity, and idiotropic cues to perceived orientation. We separated visual, body, and gravity (when present) cues to perceived orientation before, during, and after long-term exposure to microgravity during the missions of seven astronauts on the International Space Station (mean duration 168 days) and measuring perceived vertical using the subjective visual vertical and the perceptual upright. The relative influence of each cue and the variance of their judgments were measured. Fourteen ground-based control participants performed comparable measurements over a similar period. The variance of astronauts' subjective visual vertical judgments in the absence of visual cues was significantly larger immediately upon return to earth than before flight. Astronauts' perceptual upright demonstrated a reduced reliance on visual cues upon arrival on orbit that re-appeared long after returning to earth. For earth-bound controls, the contributions of body, gravity, and vision remained constant throughout the year-long testing period. This is the first multisensory study of orientation behavior in space and the first demonstration of long-term perceptual changes that persist after returning to earth. Astronauts showed a plasticity in the weighting of perceptual cues to orientation that could form the basis for future countermeasures.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".