MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106948325 · doi:10.3390/ijerph17239067

Learning a Motor Skill from Video and Static Pictures in Physical Education Students—Effects on Technical Performances, Motivation and Cognitive Load

2020· article· en· W3106948325 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive loadContext (archaeology)CognitionAnimationComputer scienceMotor skillPerceptionPsychomotor learningPsychologyCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of a video and three different formats of static pictures (simultaneous-permanent pictures, sequential-transient pictures and sequential-permanent pictures) on the acquisition and retention of a complex judo skill in novice young adults. One hundred and thirty-three first-year students in the certificate in Physical Education (PE) were randomly assigned to either: a static-simultaneous-permanent pictures condition (n = 30), a static-sequential-transient pictures condition (n = 29), a static-sequential permanent pictures condition (n = 36) or a video condition (n = 38). They were instructed to observe and reproduce a complex judo technique (Ippon-Seoi-Nage) immediately after the learning phase (including a sequence of three trials—the acquisition phase) and after one week without observation (the retention phase). The results showed that the continuous video generated better learning performances than all static pictures formats. Moreover, it has been shown that sequential-permanent pictures presentation was more effective than static simultaneous-permanent pictures and sequential-transient pictures. In addition to the human movement effect, complementary explanations in terms of cognitive load theory, perceptual continuity, mental animation and intrinsic motivation are suggested. Implications of the results for the effective design of instructional materials within PE context are discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.389 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it