Influence of Sensory Conflict on Perceived Timing of Passive Rotation in Virtual Reality
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
Integration of incoming sensory signals from multiple modalities is central in the determination of self-motion perception. With the emergence of consumer virtual reality (VR), it is becoming increasingly common to experience a mismatch in sensory feedback regarding motion when using immersive displays. In this study, we explored whether introducing various discrepancies between the vestibular and visual motion would influence the perceived timing of self-motion. Participants performed a series of temporal-order judgements between an auditory tone and a passive whole-body rotation on a motion platform accompanied by visual feedback using a virtual environment generated through a head-mounted display. Sensory conflict was induced by altering the speed and direction by which the movement of the visual scene updated relative to the observer's physical rotation. There were no differences in perceived timing of the rotation without vision, with congruent visual feedback and when the speed of the updating of the visual motion was slower. However, the perceived timing was significantly further from zero when the direction of the visual motion was incongruent with the rotation. These findings demonstrate the potential interaction between visual and vestibular signals in the temporal perception of self-motion. Additionally, we recorded cybersickness ratings and found that sickness severity was significantly greater when visual motion was present and incongruent with the physical motion. This supports previous research regarding cybersickness and the sensory conflict theory, where a mismatch between the visual and vestibular signals may lead to a greater likelihood for the occurrence of sickness symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 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