ASSESSMENT AND COMPARISON OF VISUAL SKILLS AMONG ATHLETES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vision is a warning that directs muscles of the body to respond and gives information about where and when to move. Visual reaction time amongst athletes is mainly concerned with how fast an athlete reacts to a visual stimulus. However, little information is available on reaction time (RT), hand-eye coordination among athletes from different sport branches. In many sports branches; RT and hand-eye coordination is regarded as a prerequisite for success. For this reason, the aim of the current study was to investigate RT differences for eye-hand coordination of athletes from different sports and sedentary people. Study involved 48 athletes, aged 18-25 from different branches [basketball (n=6), arm wrestling (n=4), boxing (n=6), football (n=13), handball (n=4), rugby (n=8), volleyball (n=7)] and 9 sedentary people. Hand-eye coordination tests were conducted by using reaction development and training system FitLight Trainer™ (Fitlight Sports Corp., Canada). Test protocol consisted of 10 series of simple motor reaction task to visual stimuli; each of the 10 series included 22 reactions. Variables not fitting normal distribution were compared by Kruskal Wallis H test. Mean reaction time (MRT) was found to be different among branches (p=0.009). RT for 10 different trials were found to be different for 3rd(p=0.038), 4th(p=0.047), 5th(p=0.022), 6th(p=0.044), 7th(p=0.041), 8th(p=0.011), 9th(p=0.019), 10th(p=0.023) trials. According to results, it can be said that visual reaction times of field players are very specific and insufficient to distinguish. During trainings, it may be advisable to have reaction time development exercises with specific technical/tactical skills related to branches and positions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".