Multisensory Effects on Illusory Self-Motion (Vection): the Role of Visual, Auditory, and Tactile Cues
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
A critical component to many immersive experiences in virtual reality (VR) is vection, defined as the illusion of self-motion. Traditionally, vection has been described as a visual phenomenon, but more recent research suggests that vection can be influenced by a variety of senses. The goal of the present study was to investigate the role of multisensory cues on vection by manipulating the availability of visual, auditory, and tactile stimuli in a VR setting. To achieve this, 24 adults (Mage = 25.04) were presented with a rotating stimulus aimed to induce circular vection. All participants completed trials that included a single sensory cue, a combination of two cues, or all three cues presented together. The size of the field of view (FOV) was manipulated across four levels (no-visuals, small, medium, full). Participants rated vection intensity and duration verbally after each trial. Results showed that all three sensory cues induced vection when presented in isolation, with visual cues eliciting the highest intensity and longest duration. The presence of auditory and tactile cues further increased vection intensity and duration compared to conditions where these cues were not presented. These findings support the idea that vection can be induced via multiple types of sensory inputs and can be intensified when multiple sensory inputs are combined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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