MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967440033 · doi:10.1109/vr.2019.8798263

EEG Can Be Used to Measure Embodiment When Controlling a Walking Self-Avatar

2019· article· en· W2967440033 on OpenAlexaff
Bilal Alchalabi, Jocelyn Faubert, David Labbé

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAvatarIllusionEmbodied cognitionCued speechPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationElectroencephalographyMotor imageryTreadmillComputer scienceCognitive psychologyHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceBrain–computer interfacePhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has recently been shown that inducing the ownership illusion and then manipulating the movements of one's self-avatar can lead to compensatory motor control strategies in gait rehabilitation. In order to maximize this effect, there is a need for a method that measures, and monitors embodiment levels of participants immersed in VR to induce and maintain a strong ownership illusion. The objective of this study was to propose a novel approach to measuring embodiment by presenting visual feedback that conflicts with motor control to embodied subjects. Twenty healthy participants were recruited. During experimentations, participants wore an EEG cap and motion capture markers, with an avatar displayed in a HMD from a first-person perspective. They were cued to either perform, watch or imagine a single step forward or to initiate walking on the treadmill. For some of the trials, the avatar took a step with the contralateral limb or stopped walking before the participant stopped (modified feedback). Results show that subjective levels of embodiment correlate strongly with the difference in μ - ERS power over the motor and pre-motor cortex between the modified and non-modified feedback trials.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0240.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAction Observation and SynchronizationFrench-language works237,207