ArticleScientific reports2020
Horizontal and Vertical Distance Perception in Altered Gravity.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perception of body translation amplitude in altered gravity during parabolic flight.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- The impact of gravity on perceived object height.NPJ microgravity · 2024Article
- Article
- Neutral buoyancy and the static perception of upright.NPJ microgravity · 2023Article
- Microgravity induces overconfidence in perceptual decision-making.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Vection underwater illustrates the limitations of neutral buoyancy as a microgravity analog.NPJ microgravity · 2023Article
- Visual perception of travel distance for self-motion through crowds.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Time perception in astronauts on board the International Space Station.NPJ microgravity · 2023Article
- Sensory organization of postural control after long term space flight.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2023Article
- Mental imagery of object motion in weightlessness.NPJ microgravity · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The perception of the horizontal and vertical distances of a visual target to an observer was investigated in parabolic flight during alternating short periods of normal gravity (1 g). microgravity (0 g), and hypergravity (1.8 g). The methods used for obtaining absolute judgments of egocentric distance included verbal reports and visually directed motion toward a memorized visual target by pulling on a rope with the arms (blind pulling). The results showed that, for all gravity levels, the verbal reports of distance judgments were accurate for targets located between 0.6 and 6.0 m. During blind pulling, subjects underestimated horizontal distances as distances increased, and this underestimation decreased in 0 g. Vertical distances for up targets were overestimated and vertical distances for down targets were underestimated in both 1 g and 1.8 g. This vertical asymmetry was absent in 0 g. The results of the present study confirm that blind pulling and verbal reports are independently influenced by gravity. The changes in distance judgments during blind pulling in 0 g compared to 1 g support the view that, during an action-based task, subjects base their perception of distance on the estimated motor effort of navigating to the perceived object.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.