Effect of Different Display Types on Vection and Its Interaction With Motion Direction and Field Dependence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Illusory self-motion (vection) can be generated by visual stimulation. The purpose of the present study was to compare behavioral vection measures including intensity ratings, duration, and onset time across different visual display types. Participants were exposed to a pattern of alternating black-and-white horizontal or vertical bars that moved either in vertical or horizontal direction, respectively. Stimuli were presented on four types of displays in randomized order: (a) large field of view dome projection, (b) combination of three computer screens, (c) single computer screen, (d) large field of view flat projection screen. A Computer Rod and Frame Test was used to measure field dependence, a cognitive style indicating the person's tendency to rely on external cues (i.e., field dependent) or internal cues (i.e., field independent) with respect to the perception of one's body position in space. Results revealed that all four displays successfully generated at least moderately strong vection. However, shortest vection onset, longest vection duration, and strongest vection intensity showed for the dome projection and the combination of three screens. This effect was further pronounced in field independent participants, indicating that field dependence can alter vection.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".