Effects of Vision on Head-Putter Coordination in Golf
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
Low-skill golfers coordinate the movements of their head and putter with an allocentric, isodirectional coupling, which is opposite to the allocentric, antidirectional coordination pattern used by experts (Lee, Ishikura, Kegel, Gonzalez, & Passmore, 2008). The present study investigated the effects of four vision conditions (full vision, no vision, target focus, and ball focus) on head-putter coupling in low-skill golfers. Performance in the absence of vision resulted in a level of high isodirectional coupling that was similar to the full vision condition. However, when instructed to focus on the target during the putt, or focus on the ball through a restricted viewing angle, low-skill golfers significantly decoupled the head--putter coordination pattern. However, outcome measures demonstrated that target focus resulted in poorer performance compared with the other visual conditions, thereby providing overall support for use of a ball focus strategy to enhance coordination and outcome performance. Focus of attention and reduced visual tracking were hypothesized as potential reasons for the decoupling.
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