Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated to what extent humans can encode spatial relations between different surfaces (i.e., floor, walls, and ceiling) in a three-dimensional (3D) space and extend their headings on the floor to other surfaces when locomoting to walls (pitch 90°) and the ceiling (pitch 180°). In immersive virtual reality environments, participants first learned a layout of objects on the ground. They then navigated to testing planes: south (or north) walls facing Up, or the ceiling via walls facing North (or South). Participants locomoted to the walls with pitch rotations indicated by visual and idiothetic cues (Experiment 1) and only by visual cues (Experiment 2) and to the ceiling with visual pitch rotations only (Experiment 3). Using the memory of objects' locations, they either reproduced the object layout on the testing plane or did a Judgements of Relative Direction (JRD) task ("imagine standing at object A, facing B, point to C") with imagined headings of south and north on the ground. The results showed that participants who locomoted onto the wall with idiothetic cues showed a better performance in JRD for an imagined heading from which their physical heading was extended (e.g., imagined heading of North at the north wall). In addition, the participants who reproduced the layout of objects on the ceiling from a perspective extended from the ground also showed a sensorimotor alignment effect predicted by an extended heading. These results indicate that humans encode spatial relations between different surfaces and extend headings via pitch rotations three-dimensionally, especially with idiothetic 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 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".