The Ability to Maintain Attention during Visuomotor Task Performance in Handball Players and Non-Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the important aspects of attentional processes in sport performance is sustained attention during task execution. The objective of this study was to analyze the ability to maintain attention during a serial reaction time task performance in expert handball players (n = 12) and non-athletes (n = 12). Participants p erform a FitLight TrainerTM (Fitlight Sports Corp., Canada) test protocol configured by the PDA controller which consisted of 10 series of simple motor reaction task to visual stimuli appearing on 8 wireless light discs. Each of the 10 series included 22 reactions. Ability to maintain attention was determined by analyzing the variability in results during testing, e.g. the total time of test execution and the average reaction time to visual stimulus in each subsequent series. The main finding in our study was that Non-athletes in comparison to Athletes had: (1) longer total time of test execution; (2) longer reaction time; (3) and higher variability in results during task performance. The results indicate a higher level of ability to maintain attention in handball players.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".