Gender bias in the influence of gravity on perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Females are influenced more than males by visual cues during many spatial orientation tasks; but females rely more heavily on gravitational cues during visual-vestibular conflict. Are there gender biases in the relative contributions of vision, gravity and the internal representation of the body to the perception of upright? And might any such biases be affected by low gravity? 16 participants (8 female) viewed a highly polarized visual scene tilted ±112° while lying supine on the European Space Agency's short-arm human centrifuge. The centrifuge was rotated to simulate 24 logarithmically spaced g-levels along the long axis of the body (0.04-0.5g at ear-level). The perception of upright was measured using the Oriented Character Recognition Test (OCHART). OCHART uses the ambiguous symbol "p" shown in different orientations. Participants decided whether it was a "p" or a "d" from which the perceptual upright (PU) can be calculated for each visual/gravity combination. The relative contribution of vision, gravity and the internal representation of the body were then calculated. Experiments were repeated while upright. The relative contribution of vision on the PU was less in females compared to males (t=-18.48, p≤0.01). Females placed more emphasis on the gravity cue instead (f:28.4%, m:24.9%) while body weightings were constant (f:63.0%, m:63.2%). When upright (1g) in this and other studies (e.g., Barnett-Cowan et al. 2010, EJN, 31,1899) females placed more emphasis on vision in this task than males. The reduction in weight allocated by females to vision when in simulated low-gravity conditions compared to when upright under normal gravity may be related to similar female behaviour in response to other instances of visual-vestibular conflict. Why this is the case and at which point the perceptual change happens requires further research. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2018
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".