Neuropsychological Approaches to Visually-Induced Vection: an Overview and Evaluation of Neuroimaging and Neurophysiological Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moving visual stimuli can elicit the sensation of self-motion in stationary observers, a phenomenon commonly referred to as vection. Despite the long history of vection research, the neuro-cognitive processes underlying vection have only recently gained increasing attention. Various neuropsychological techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) have been used to investigate the temporal and spatial characteristics of the neuro-cognitive processing during vection in healthy participants. These neuropsychological studies allow for the identification of different neuro-cognitive correlates of vection, which (a) will help to unravel the neural basis of vection and (b) offer opportunities for applying vection as a tool in other research areas. The purpose of the current review is to evaluate these studies in order to show the advances in neuropsychological vection research and the challenges that lie ahead. The overview of the literature will also demonstrate the large methodological variability within this research domain, limiting the integration of results. Next, we will summarize methodological considerations and suggest helpful recommendations for future vection research, which may help to enhance the comparability across neuropsychological vection studies.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it