EEG in Motion: Using an Oddball Task to Explore Motor Interference in Active Skateboarding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent advancements in portable computer devices have opened new avenues in the study of human cognition outside research laboratories. This flexibility in methodology has led to the publication of several Electroencephalography (EEG) studies recording brain responses in real-world scenarios such as cycling and walking outside. In the present study, we tested the classic auditory oddball task while participants moved around an indoor running track using an electric skateboard. This novel approach allows for the study of attention in motion while virtually removing body movement. Using the skateboard auditory oddball paradigm, we found reliable and expected standard-target differences in the P3 and MMN/N2b event-related potentials (ERPs). We also recorded baseline EEG activity and found that, compared to this baseline, alpha power is attenuated in frontal and parietal regions during skateboarding. In order to explore the influence of motor interference in cognitive resources during skateboarding, we compared participants’ preferred riding stance (baseline level of riding difficulty) vs their non-preferred stance (increased level of riding difficulty). We found that an increase in riding difficulty did not modulate the P3 and tonic alpha amplitude during skateboard motion. These results suggest that increases in motor demands might not lead to reductions in cognitive resources as shown in previous literature.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".