MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609474644 · doi:10.1080/20445911.2017.1310108

Stimulus size matters: do life-sized stimuli induce stronger embodiment effects in mental rotation?

2017· article· en· W2609474644 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpatial Cognition and Navigation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionPsychologyMental rotationStimulus (psychology)Cognitive psychologyCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Against the background of the embodied cognition approach this experiment investigated the influence of motor expertise on object-based vs. egocentric transformations in a chronometric mental rotation (MR) task using images of either the own or another person’s body as stimulus material. The present study aimed to clarify two issues: (1) whether stimulus size (life size vs. small) is able to induce embodiment effects and (2) which role self-awareness processes play when using stimuli of the own body. The same design was conducted twice using both small stimuli (Study 1) and life-size human figures (Study 2). Using life-sized figures in Study 2 resulted in an explicit advantage of self-related stimuli and improved performance for motor experts compared to non-motor experts in both object-based and egocentric transformations. In conclusion, these results suggest that life-sized figures do indeed induce stronger embodiment effects in MR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.319 · 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