When the quiet eye gets older – perceptual skill in expert and novice basketball players of varying age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schorer and Baker (2009) showed that some perceptual skills could be maintained with age. The quiet-eye, defined as the last fixation on a target before starting a final motor action, is a robust phenomenon within perceptual expertise (Vickers, 2007). The aim of this study was to investigate maintenance of quiet-eye in basketball players of varying age and expertise groups. Our first hypothesis considered differences in throwing performance between expertise levels while the second investigated whether throwing results were maintained with age. In a two (novices vs. experts) by two (40-50 vs. 70-80 years of age) factorial design participants were asked to conduct free throws. Throwing results and duration of quiet-eye were the dependent variables. An analysis of variance revealed significant differences in throwing results across the expertise levels, F (1,47) = 107.76, p .01, ƒ=.44. Results for quiet-eye duration showed neither significant differences between expertise level, F (1,41) = 0.46, p = .50, ƒ =.01 , nor for age groups, F (1,41) = 1.98, p = .17, ƒ =.23. The interaction of both factors revealed a medium effect, Fs (1,41) = 3.87, p = .06, ƒ =.31. Our results indicate that free throw expertise can be maintained up to older ages, but skill maintenance cannot be attributed to longer quiet-eye durations, as it is in younger groups. These results indicate that motor behavior might be able to compensate for decreases in perceptual processes involved with throwing performance (cf. Salthouse, 1984). Acknowledgments: Salthouse T.A. (1984): Effects of age and skill in typing. In: J Exp Psychol: Gen (113), S. 345–371. Schorer, J. &. Baker J. (2009): Aging and perceptual-motor expertise in handball goalkeepers. In: Experimental Aging Research (35), S. 1–19. Vickers, J. N. (2007): Perception, Cognition and Decision Training. The Quiet Eye in Action. Champaign: IL: Human Kinetics.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".