ArticleVision (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Default Reference Frames for Angular Expansion in the Perception of Visual Direction.
Article in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Things are looking (farther) up: Upward gaze orientation is overestimated.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Large Bias in Matching Small Horizontal and Vertical Extents Separated in Depth in the Real World Is Similar for Upright and Supine Observers.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prior work has shown that perceived angular elevation relative to a visible horizon/ground plane is exaggerated with a gain of about 1.5. Here, we investigated whether estimates of angular elevation remain exaggerated when no such visual gravitational reference is provided. This was investigated using a series of five experiments, with most using a novel apparatus to view a large field-of-view stereoscopic virtual environment while lying supine, looking straight up. Magnitude estimation methods were used as well as psychometric matches to internal standards with a total of 133 human participants. Generally, it was found that the exaggerated scaling of elevation seemed to be a default for 3D space, even if testing was performed in virtual environments that were nearly empty. Indeed, for supine observers, a strong exaggeration was found even for azimuthal judgments, which is consistent with the idea that, when looking upward, all deviations are in elevation. This suggests that the overarching gravitational frame often serves as a default reference frame.
Indexed as
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.