Review: The Quiet Eye in Sports Performance—Is the Quiet Eye the Ultimate Explanation or Only the Beginning?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: The quiet eye is a gaze behavior that seems to differentiate both expert-novice performance and successful and unsuccessful performance in experts; however, the quiet eye may only represent one aspect of the perceptual-cognitive expertise differences that exist between athletes and nonathletes.Research suggests that expert-novice differences in vision and visual-motor coordination skills exist between athletes and nonathletes, although the underlying mechanisms driving these differences are not well understood. The quiet eye is the final fixation or tracking gaze made before the initiation of the action of importance in a motor coordination task and is quite possibly the most well-studied vision strategy variable in sport. The quiet eye has been shown to be a key component of both expert ability and successful performance. However, the quiet eye is not without its criticisms, and the perceptual mechanisms underlying this unique gaze behavior are not yet well understood. The question that remains to be answered is whether the differences in vision and visual-motor coordination skills that exist between athletes and nonathletes can be explained by the quiet eye alone or if the explanation is more complicated.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it