Combining 3D-MOT With Sport Decision-Making for Perceptual-Cognitive Training in Virtual Reality
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
This study introduces a virtual life-sized perceptual-cognitive training paradigm that combines three-dimensional multiple object tracking (3D-MOT) with motor (Experiment 1) or perceptual (Experiment 2) sport decision-making tasks. We sought to assess the impact of training on task performance and determine optimal training conditions for improvement and learning. Fifty-seven participants were randomly assigned to one of four training conditions (isolated 3D-MOT, 3D-MOT combined with a decision-making task, consolidated 3D-MOT later combined with a decision-making task, and isolated decision-making task). We evaluated task performance using speed thresholds, success rate (%), and reaction time (s). Findings were that the dual-task paradigm was associated with performance beyond chance level on both 3D-MOT and decision-making tasks despite an important dual-task cost. Interestingly, the results seemed to favor consolidated 3D-MOT training over simultaneous 3D-MOT training when combined with a motor decision-making task but not when combined with a perceptual decision-making task. The number of shared attentional resources in the nature of the additional task (i.e., perceptual or motor decision-making) seems to be key in interpreting the dual-task interference. These findings must be considered when designing representative multitask perceptual-cognitive training.
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) | 0.007 | 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