Looking to Learn Better - Training of Perception-Specific Focus of Attention Influences Quiet Eye Duration but Not Throwing Accuracy in Darts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigations of the association of focus of attention and quiet eye duration have shown mixed results. It is possible that when focusing on visuo-motor learning a more sensitive category system of instructions might be useful. The aim of this study was to investigate the interaction of focus of attention and quiet eye duration in darts. In addition to locus-directed foci (external, internal), perception-directed (visual, kinesthetic) foci of attention were considered. Participants were divided into four groups and had to perform a pre- and post-test with a 1-week training intervention in between. Throwing accuracy (TA) and quiet eye duration (QED) were measured using the SMI eye tracking glasses. An analysis of covariance (2x2) showed no significant group differences or interactions for TA. For QED, an analysis of variance (2x2x2) showed quiet eye duration was increased with the intervention but there were significant differences between the tests. A significant interaction of test and perception-directed focus was observed. Visually instructed groups increased QED whereas the kinesthetic group decreased the QED, suggesting perceptual and motor learning may be asynchronous. One possible explanation for the trends might be the common-coding theory of perception and 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".