Experience modulates gaze behavior and the effectiveness of information pickup to overcome the inversion effect in biological motion perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inversion effect in biological motion suggests that presenting a point-light display (PLD) in an inverted orientation impairs the observer's ability to perceive the movement, likely due to the observer's unfamiliarity with the dynamic characteristics of inverted motion. Vertical dancers (VDs), accustomed to performing and perceiving others to perform dance movements in an inverted orientation while being suspended in the air, offer a unique perspective on this phenomenon. A previous study showed that VDs were more sensitive to the artificial inversion of PLDs depicting dance movements when compared to typical and non-dancers if given sufficient dynamic information. The current study compared the gaze behaviors of non-dancers, typical dancers, and VDs when observing PLDs of upright and inverted dance movements (either on the ground or in the air) to determine if the PLDs were artificially inverted. Behavioral results replicated the previous study, showing that VDs were more sensitive in detecting inverted movements. Eye-tracking data revealed that VDs had longer fixations, primarily directed at the depicted dancer's pelvic area. When performing movements in the air, the depicted dancer was suspended via a harness around their pelvis, providing unique dynamic information that specified the movement's canonical orientation. In contrast, although typical dancers also attended to the pelvic area, their lack of experience with perceiving and performing vertical dance movements limited their ability to interpret the dynamic information effectively. These findings highlight the role of specialized visuomotor experience in enhancing biological motion perception and have implications for training techniques that leverage visual strategies to improve performance in complex or unfamiliar movement contexts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".