Effect of attentional focus on manual tracking performance: Central vs. ambient input
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
The present study examined the manual tracking performance of participants under both external and internal focus instructions while engaging either central or ambient vision. Participants were instructed to reproduce both spatial and temporal characteristics of two vertically oscillating targets (0 and 90 degree phasing relationship) displayed on a monitor in front of them, which required monitoring via their central (< 15 degrees from central fixation point) or ambient (>30 degrees from central fixation point) visual systems. Manual tracking performance was recorded while participants focused attention on either their hands (internal focus) or the handles they were grasping (external focus). Tracking accuracy (root mean square: RMS) and temporal accuracy (lag) results revealed that when internal focus instructions were paired with ambient visual conditions, temporal performance was comparable to external focus results, suggesting that internal focus deficits can be offset by engaging ambient vision. For RMS results, performance accuracy was superior only when ambient vision was used under the more difficult 90 degree tracking trials.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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