Online Attentional-Focus Manipulations in a Soccer-Dribbling Task: Implications for the Proceduralization of Motor Skills
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
A focus of attention on the step-by-step control of a skill has been shown to be detrimental to experts' performance but to have no significant effect on novices' performance (e.g., S. L. Beilock, T. H. Carr, C. MacMahon, & J. L. Starkes, 2002), contrary to the results of manipulations of the direction of attentional focus (e.g., G. Wulf, M. Höss, & W. Prinz, 1998). In previous studies, researchers have not separated the focus of attention from the nature of the instruction provided or the skill level of the participants. In the present experiment, 10 skilled and 10 less skilled soccer players dribbled a ball after receiving instructions directing attention to an internal, skill-relevant feature (foot); an internal, skill-irrelevant feature (arm); or a skill-irrelevant task (word-monitoring). Performance was evaluated in relation to a no-attentional-focus control condition. For skilled performers, an internal focus on the arms and feet interfered with performance. For less skilled performers, an internal, yet skill-relevant, focus of attention (foot) did not degrade performance, whereas attention to the arms and word monitoring had a detrimental effect. No significant differences were observed across the three attentional manipulations when the skilled performers used the nondominant foot. The results generally supported the deautomization of skills hypothesis.
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