Consolidation Effects in a Full-Body Diving Task
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
In recent years, it has been shown that spacing training sessions by several hours allows the consolidation of motor skills in the brain, a process leading to the stabilization of the skills and, sometimes, further improvement without additional practice. At the moment, it is unknown whether consolidation can lead to an improvement in performance when the learner performs complex full-body movements. To explore this question, we recruited 10 divers and had them practice a challenging diving maneuver. Divers first performed an initial training session, consisting of 12 dives during which visual feedback was provided immediately after each dive through video replay. Two retention tests without feedback were performed 30 min and 24 hr after the initial training session. All dives were recorded using a video camera and the participants’ performance was assessed by measuring the verticality of the body segments at water entry. Significant performance gains were observed in the 24-hr retention test ( p < .05). These results suggest that the learning of complex full-body movements can benefit from consolidation and that splitting practice sessions can be used as a training tool to facilitate skill acquisition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it