Bibliographic record
Abstract
When participants are asked to flip an omnidirectional switch "down", the direction of their responses depends mainly on gravicentric, less so on egocentric and least on visual cues about the vertical (Lackner and DiZio, Exp. Brain Res. 130:2-26, 2000). Here we evaluate response direction when gravicentric cues are not available. Participants flipped an omnidirectional switch "down" when gravito-inertial force acted orthogonally to the response plane on earth (session E), and when it was near zero during parabolic flights (session P). We found that the relative weight of visual cues was similar in both sessions, and it was similar to that in an earlier study where participants stood upright. Across all three data sets, the weight of visual cues averaged 0.09. The relative weight of egocentric cues was also similar in both sessions, averaging 0.87; however, it was significantly lower in the earlier study with upright participants, where it averaged 0.43. We further found that informative and noninformative tactile stimulation had no substantial effects on response direction, which suggests that the earlier reported anchoring effect of tactile signals for the perceived vertical may not extend to the motor vertical. We conclude that the absence of gravicentric cues is compensated by a higher weight of egocentric cues, but not by a higher weight of visual cues. As a consequence, astronauts, divers and persons who work on ground in a horizontal body posture may mishandle equipment because of their strong reliance on egocentric cues.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".