The influence of environmental geometry and spatial symmetry on spatial updating during locomotion.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial updating based on self-motion cues is important to navigation in the absence of familiar landmarks. Previous studies showed that spatial updating without vision was automatic. The goal of the current study was to investigate whether ambiguous orientations indicated by visual cues affect spatial updating based on self-motion. Participants learned an object array in a rectangular room. After the objects were removed, participants maintained their actual perspective or turned 180° to face opposite walls of the room. Participants judged relative directions from imagined perspectives based on the memories of the object array. The actual and imagined perspectives were aligned or misaligned. Better performance for aligned than misaligned perspectives (sensorimotor alignment effects) was used to indicate spontaneous updating of ones' headings relative to the object array. In Experiment 1, participants turned their bodies in the middle of the room so that their distances to the walls of the room looked similar before and after turning (spatial symmetry at the turning position with the rectangular room shape). In Experiments 2-3, participants turned their bodies in a location so that the distances to the facing walls looked different before and after turning (spatial asymmetry at the turning position with the rectangular room shape). The results showed sensorimotor alignment effects in Experiments 2-3 but not in Experiment 1. These results suggest that updating self-orientation based on self-motion was cancelled by ambiguous orientations indicated by spatial symmetry at the turning position, but not cancelled by ambiguous orientations indicated by the rectangular room shape per se. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".