The effect of modeled absolute timing variability and relative timing variability on observational learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is much evidence to suggest that skill learning is enhanced by skill observation. Recent research on this phenomenon indicates a benefit of observing variable/erred demonstrations. In this study, we explore whether it is variability within the relative organization or absolute parameterization of a movement that facilitates skill learning through observation. To do so, participants were randomly allocated into groups that observed a model with no variability, absolute timing variability, relative timing variability, or variability in both absolute and relative timing. All participants performed a four-segment movement pattern with specific absolute and relative timing goals prior to and following the observational intervention, as well as in a 24h retention test and transfers tests that featured new relative and absolute timing goals. Absolute timing error indicated that all groups initially acquired the absolute timing, maintained their performance at 24h retention, and exhibited performance deterioration in both transfer tests. Relative timing error revealed that the observation of no variability and relative timing variability produced greater performance at the post-test, 24h retention and relative timing transfer tests, but for the no variability group, deteriorated at absolute timing transfer test. The results suggest that the learning of absolute timing following observation unfolds irrespective of model variability. However, the learning of relative timing benefits from holding the absolute features constant, while the observation of no variability partially fails in transfer. We suggest learning by observing no variability and variable/erred models unfolds via similar neural mechanisms, although the latter benefits from the additional coding of information pertaining to movements that require a correction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".