Visual–vestibular sensory integration during congruent and incongruent self-rotation percepts using caloric vestibular stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The present study sets out to determine which sensory system mostly influences self-motion perception when visual and vestibular cues are in conflict. We paired caloric vestibular stimulation that signaled motion in either the clockwise or counter-clockwise direction with a visual display that indicated self-rotation in either the same or opposite directions. Methods: In Experiment 1 (E1), caloric vestibular stimulation was used to produce vestibular circular vection. In Experiment 2 (E2), a virtual optokinetic drum was used to produce visual circular vection in a VR headset. Vection speed, direction, and duration were recorded using a potentiometer knob the participant controlled in E1 and E2. In Experiment 3 (E3), visual and vestibular stimuli were matched to be at approximately equal speeds across visual and vestibular modalities for each participant setting up Experiment 4 (E4). In E4, participants observed a moving visual pattern in a virtual reality (VR) headset while receiving caloric vestibular stimulation. Participants rotated the potentiometer knob while attending to visual–vestibular stimuli presentations to indicate their perceived circular vection. E4 had two conditions: 1) A congruent condition where calorics and visual display indicated circular vection in the same direction; 2) an incongruent condition where calorics and visual display indicated circular vection in opposite directions. Results and discussion: There were equal reports of knob rotation in the direction consistent with the visual and vestibular self-rotation direction in the incongruent condition of E4 across trials. There were no significant differences in knob rotation speed and duration in both conditions. These results demonstrate that the brain appears to weigh visual and vestibular cues equally during a visual–vestibular conflict of approximately equal speeds. These results are most consistent with the optimal cue integration hypothesis.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".