MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402832393 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0305661

Perceived travel distance depends on the speed and direction of self-motion

2024· article· en· W4402832393 on OpenAlexafffund
Ambika Bansal, Meaghan McManus, Björn Jörges, Laurence R. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsMotion (physics)Path integrationTask (project management)PerceptionVirtual realityMotion perceptionComputer scienceComputer visionPreferred walking speedArtificial intelligenceSimulationPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although estimating travel distance is essential to our ability to move through the world, our distance estimates can be inaccurate. These odometric errors occur because people tend to perceive that they have moved further than they had. Many of the studies investigating the perception of travel distance have primarily used forward translational movements, and postulate that perceived travel distance results from integration over distance and is independent of travel speed. Speed effects would imply integration over time as well as space. To examine travel distance perception with different directions and speeds, we used virtual reality (VR) to elicit visually induced self-motion. Participants (n = 15) were physically stationary while being visually "moved" through a virtual corridor, either judging distances by stopping at a previously seen target (Move-To-Target Task) or adjusting a target to the previous movement made (Adjust-Target Task). We measured participants' perceived travel distance over a range of speeds (1-5 m/s) and distances in four directions (up, down, forward, backward). We show that the simulated speed and direction of motion differentially affect the gain (perceived travel distance / actual travel distance). For the Adjust-Target task, forwards motion was associated with smaller gains than either backward, up, or down motion. For the Move-To-Target task, backward motion was associated with smaller gains than either forward, up or down motion. For both tasks, motion at the slower speed was associated with higher gains than the faster speeds. These results show that transforming visual motion into travel distance differs depending on the speed and direction of optic flow being perceived. We also found that a common model used to study the perception of travel distance was a better fit for the forward direction compared to the others. This implies that the model should be modified for these different non-forward motion directions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207