Comparisons of Target Localization Abilities during Physical and Virtual Rotating Scenes by Cognitively-Intact and Cognitively Impaired Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<strong><em>Background</em></strong>: Previous studies have reported that coordinate information (i.e. distance between any two objects in a specific direction) is encoded differently from Virtual Reality (VR) and physical scenes. However, the accuracy of encoding categorical information (i.e. relative positions of objects) from VR scenes has not been adequately investigated. During this study, we used a novel rotating visual scene to study the effects of aging, prior experience with VR, and dementia on the accuracy of encoding categorical information between physical and virtual environments. <strong><em>Methods</em></strong>: We recruited a cohort of 60 cognitively-healthy older adults, with and without previous VR experience (Experiment 1), as well as 18 older adults with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD) (Experiment 2). During both of the experiments, the participants were asked to attend to a target window in a virtual or real small-scale model building (dependent upon group assignment) as the building was rotated around its vertical axis in depth of the scene. Participants were required to verbally judge the final position of the target in terms of direction (e.g., left, right, back, and front) with respect to the entrance of the buildings after the full rotation has stopped. A score was calculated for each participant based on s/her accuracy in locating the target window. <strong><em>Results</em></strong>: Healthy older adults succeeded in accurately localizing the target&#39;s position from both environments, whereas individuals with AD were only able to encode the target&rsquo;s position from the physical environment. <strong><em>Conclusions</em></strong><strong>:</strong> Our results suggest the inability to encode from a rotating VR scene might be a symptom of dementia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".