Demonstration as a rate enhancer to changes in coordination during early skill acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the nature and rate of change in intra-limb coordination in participants who observed a video model (model) with those who practised based on verbal guidance only (control). Sixteen male novices threw a ball towards a target with maximal velocity using a back-handed, reverse baseball pitch. Participants in the model group immediately changed their intra-limb relative motion to more closely resemble the model's relative motion pattern. This new coordination pattern, and concomitant changes in ball speed, was maintained throughout acquisition, without further change. In contrast, the control group showed no change in coordination or ball speed across acquisition. Our findings suggest that demonstrations act as a rate enhancer, conveying an immediate movement solution that is adopted early in acquisition. A model may constrain the learner to perceive and imitate the model's relative motion pattern as suggested by Scully and Newell (1985). The stability of this new movement pattern questions accounts of learning, which suggest that prescriptive, directed learning may result in the "soft assembly" of an inaccurate and temporary movement solution.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".