MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2729657088

Skill acquisition processes in a visual occlusion motor task

2014· article· en· W2729657088 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicole Roshko, Kateline J Hladky, Brian K. V. Maraj

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCursor (databases)Analysis of varianceRepeated measures designPost hocMotor learningTukey's range testComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligencePsychologyMathematicsStatisticsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prediction motion tasks (PMT) require the estimation of an object’s temporal and spatial position after its trajectory has been visually occluded (Tresilian, 1995). The purpose of this experiment was to investigate motor learning in PMT. Ten participants (mean age: 21.8 years) responded to a visual display (E-Prime, PST, Pittsburg, PA) using a mouse. The display depicted a ball moving towards a target region with the path being occluded at the mid-point. The goal was for the participant to move the cursor so that the occluded ball and the cursor coincided within the target region. Participants completed five blocks of 30 randomized trials, which included three speeds (fast/medium/slow) with visual feedback after each trial. The difference between the ball and cursor’s location was recorded to calculate the dependent measures (CE/VE). Ten minutes and 60 minutes after completion participants performed 30 randomized trials of the three speeds without feedback. The acquisition data were analyzed using a 3-Speed by 5-Block repeated measures ANOVA. Results for CE showed main effects for Speed and post-hoc test (Tukey HSD, p<0.05) showed slow different than fast/medium. Analysis for Block demonstrated 1 as having greater error than 2-5. Results for VE showed a main effect for Block (1 more variable than 2-5). The 10-minute (Retention 10) and 60-minute (Retention 60) retention data were analyzed along with Acquisition Blocks 1 and 5 using a 3-Speed by 4-Time repeated measures ANOVA. Results for CE revealed main effects for Speed and Time. Post-hoc analyses showed the slow condition with more error than fast/medium and Acquisition 1 different than Retention 10, which was not different than Retention 60. Overall, there was a distinct improvement as a function of time (decreasing CE). These results will be discussed in relation to skill acquisition processes (eg. contextual interference) and its specific implications for PMT.Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge the support of the Sport Science Association of Alberta.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→