Steering in the presence of a gaze-contingent occlusion over a quarter of the visual field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why do some cortically blind (CB) drivers who are missing vision from a quadrant or hemifield have trouble maintaining a central lane position, while others do not? A recent driving study in virtual reality showed that most patients with right-sided visual field deficits (right CB) perform similarly to controls, while most of those with left CB demonstrated a unique pattern of steering biases (Giguere et al., 2025). In this study, we tested the hypothesis that these biases could result from loss of visual information falling on the blind field. The steering and gaze behavior of 24 subjects with normal vision (mean age: 19.8 years, SD: 1.44) were recorded in a virtual reality steering task while gaze-contingent occluding masks were imposed on a quadrant of their visual field. The central five degrees of vision were spared to mimic the sparing present in most CB patients. Turn direction (left/right), turn radius (two non-constant radii), and occlusion quadrant (one of four quadrants or no occlusion) were randomized between trials. We found that the pattern of steering biases observed in CB drivers were not replicated when visually-healthy drivers were subjected to gaze-contingent masks, and we conclude that it may be a mistake to characterize the effects of cortical blindness on steering behavior as consistent with a simple omission of visual information. This insight has the potential to guide future research on CB adaptation to their visual impairments and possible interventions to improve their steering performance.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".