An Examination of Ice Hockey Players' Imagery Use and Movement Imagery Ability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imagery is an effective performance enhancing technique for athletes (Driskell, Copper, & Moran, 1994), and therefore has been the topic of extensive investigation in the sport psychology domain. To date, the few studies that have examined imagery across position of play have neglected to examine goaltenders as a distinct position from defense. As such, comparisons can only be made between forwards and defense. The purpose of the present study was to examine influence of playing position on imagery use and movement imagery ability in elite male ice hockey players. Participants included 258 competitive male ice hockey players (n = 122 forwards, n = 68 defense, n = 68 goaltenders), between the ages of 16 and 29 years (19.12 ±1.96). Two separate MANOVAs revealed significant overall effects for both imagery frequency and imagery ability across playing position. Univariate follow-up ANOVAs found that goaltenders use significantly more MG-M and CS imagery than forwards and defense. Furthermore, it was found that goaltenders indicated clearer and more vivid images from an internal and external perspective than forwards. Findings from the present study provide sport psychologists with research that can guide the development of more individually tailored imagery interventions for ice hockey athletes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".