Predicting the action outcome of left- and right-footed penalties in a rep-resentative experimental setting in soccer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anticipation of left- compared to right-sided actions of an opponent seems to be more difficult. present study aimed to investigate whether prediction accuracy and gaze behavior of left- vs. right-footed penalties differ from each other in a representative experimental setting. 29 participants (soccer goalkeepers, soccer players, non-soccer players) predicted shot direction (left/right) of left- and right-footed penalties from a goalkeeper's perspective. Stimuli were presented in life-size on a large screen (3.2 x 2.1 m) and occluded at ball contact. Participants had to perform a full-body movement towards the predicted shot direction. Accuracy was defined in terms of the correct re-sponse direction. Percentage of time of gaze was examined for five areas of interest (head, upper body, hip, supporting leg, shooting leg). A 2 (condition) x 3 (group) ANOVA for accuracy revealed a significant main effect for condition (F(1,27) = 5.3, p < .05), with higher accuracy for right- (M = 68%) compared to left-footed (M = 64%) penalties. All other main effects and interactions did not attain significance. A 2 (condition) x 3 (group) x 5 (area) ANOVA for gaze revealed a significant main effect for area (F(4,104) = 4.0, p < .05), showing the longest viewing time toward the shooting leg. All other main effects and interactions did not attain significance. present results indicate higher accuracy for right- compared to left-footed penalties. However, gaze behavior did not differ between left- and right-footed penalties. It can be argued that information processing is different for left- vs. right-sided actions.Acknowledgments: research was funded by the German Research Foundation, International Research Training Group, IRTG 1901, The Brain in Action
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".