Evaluating the acute influence of unrpresentative practice tasks on the gaze behaviour of elite baseball hitters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The preservation of perception-action coupling in the practice environment may increase skill transfer to competition and quality of learning, in part because relevant perceptual (e.g., visual) information is preserved. Although baseball batters rely on advanced gaze behaviours to achieve success in a challenging perceptual-cognitive-motor task, development of these skills may be constrained by traditional de-coupled practice drills. This study's purpose was to explore the influence of de-coupled batting drills on the gaze behaviour of 28 elite baseball players. Participants completed one of four warm–up tasks common in baseball practice (i.e., stationary tee, pitching machine batting practice, coach-thrown batting practice, and a control) varying in representativeness, prior to participating in a temporal occlusion simulation. No statistically significant evidence of an acute warm-up effect was noted. However, descriptively the more de-coupled tasks influenced participants' quickness and ability to locate the pitcher's release point and to less desirable observations of task-relevant areas. Main effects of occlusion time (F (2, 26) = 3.87, p = .03), and playing level (F (1, 27) = 16.81, p < .01), were also observed. Accordingly, players of advanced skill fixated more quickly on the release point, and participants increased their sum of task-relevant fixations across trials. Additionally, release point fixation before release of the ball was positively related to correct pitch type predictions (?2 (1) = 78.67, p < .01). The absence of a conclusive warm-up condition effect may be explained by the athletes' familiarity with unrepresentative tasks, and potential skill in recalibration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".