Watch and Learn: Seeing Is Better than Doing when Acquiring Consecutive Motor Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During motor adaptation learning, consecutive physical practice of two different tasks compromises the retention of the first. However, there is evidence that observational practice, while still effectively aiding acquisition, will not lead to interference and hence prove to be a better practice method. Observers and Actors practised in a clockwise (Task A) followed by a counterclockwise (Task B) visually rotated environment, and retention was immediately assessed. An Observe-all and Act-all group were compared to two groups who both physically practised Task A, but then only observed (ObsB) or did not see or practice Task B (NoB). The two observer groups and the NoB control group better retained Task A than Actors, although importantly only the observer groups learnt Task B. RT data and explicit awareness of the rotation suggested that the observers had acquired their respective tasks in a more strategic manner than Actor and Control groups. We conclude that observational practice benefits learning of multiple tasks more than physical practice due to the lack of updating of implicit, internal models for aiming in the former.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".