Benefits associated with interspersing observation with physical practice trials in motor-related adaptation processes is related to the rest between physical practice trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observational practice of a novel visuomotor rotation has not resulted in unintentional (motor) after-effects, despite subsequent benefits when moving in the novel environment. This suggests that observational practice does not update implicit motor planning processes, without previous physical experience. In prior work, we had shown that interspersing physical with observational practice can bring about significant after-effects but observation preceded by a block of physical practice did not. In the current study we compared interspersed and blocked trials of physical and observational practice with a condition where participants rested between trials. We used a mirror-box set-up with virtual targets and feedback rotated 30°clockwise. There were 10 participants in 5 groups: physical practice; blocked observation followed by physical practice, or the reverse; interspersed physical and observational practice (every 5 trials); and physical practice with rest every 5 trials. All groups showed after-effects in a post-test, but these were less pronounced for the 2 blocked groups. The interspersing of observation had some direct benefits, in comparison to rest trials, when groups were tested again in the rotated environment. Observation groups also showed increased RTs and greater variability between trials, indicative of strategic adaptation. Any benefits of interspersing observation trials, with respect to updating of the motor system, appeared to be related to consolidation processes associated with the rest between trials. There was no evidence that learning which occurs from observational practice after prior motor experience is qualitatively different from that which occurs from observational practice in the absence of motor experience.Acknowledgments: The first author would like to acknowledge Discovery grant funding from NSERC (Natural Sciences & Engineering Council of Canada) for this research
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".