Quiet eye training aids the long‐term learning of throwing and catching in children: Preliminary evidence for a predictive control strategy
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
Quiet eye training (QET) may be a more effective method for teaching children to catch than traditional training (TT) methods, but it is unclear if the benefits accrued persist in the long term. Thirty children were randomly allocated into a QET or TT group and, while wearing a mobile eye tracker, underwent baseline testing, training and two retention tests over a period of eight weeks, using a validated throw and catch task. During training, movement-related information was provided to both groups, while the QET group received additional instruction to increase the duration of their targeting fixation (QE1) on the wall prior to the throw, and pursuit tracking (QE2) period on the ball prior to catching. In both immediate (R1) and delayed (R2, six weeks later) retention tests, the QET group had a significantly longer QE1 duration and an earlier and longer QE2 duration, compared to the TT group, who revealed no improvements. A performance advantage was also found for the QET compared to the TT group at both R1 and R2, revealing the relatively robust nature of the visuomotor alterations. Regression analyses suggested that only the duration of QE1 predicted variance in catch success post-training, pointing to the importance of a pre-programming visuomotor strategy for successful throw and catch performance.
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 | 0.010 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it