Performing Under Pressure: The Effects of Physiological Arousal, Cognitive Anxiety, and Gaze Control in Biathlon
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors provide evidence that choking under pressure is associated with changes in visual attention. Ten elite biathlon shooters were tested under separate low-pressure (LP) and high-pressure (HP) conditions after exercising on a cycle ergometer at individually prescribed power output (PO) levels of 55%, 70%, 85%, and 100% of their maximum oxygen uptake. The authors determined difference scores by subtracting each athlete's score in the LP condition from his or her score in the HP condition for heart rate (d-HR), rate of perceived exertion (d-RPE), cognitive anxiety (d-CA), and cognitive worry (d-CW), and final fixation on the target or quiet eye gaze (d-QE). Using regression analysis, the authors determined predictors of accuracy for each HP PO level. At PO 55%, the authors found 3 predictors (d-HR, d-RPE, d-QE) that accounted for .62 of the adjusted R2 variance. Accuracy was higher when d-QE was lower and d-RPE and d-HR were higher than the values found in the LP condition. At PO 100%, however, an increase in d-QE and d-RPE accounted for .58 of the adjusted R2 variance. Accuracy was dependent on an increase in external focus (positive d-QE) independently of heart rate. At the highest PO level, directing visual attention externally to critical task information appeared to insulate the athletes from choking under HP.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it