Novice and Expert Observer Accuracy of the Threshold Wheelchair Skill: A Pilot Eye-Tracking Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Moving a wheelchair over a low threshold is an entry-level mobility skill. Observation is critical to the assessment and training of this skill. The primary objective of this exploratory pilot study was to determine if a difference between novice and expert visual attention allocation pattern was linked to the accuracy of rating skill performance and decision confidence. Methods: Twelve expert occupational therapists and nine non-expert occupational therapy students observed 30 first-attempt recordings of able-bodied persons learning the low threshold skill. Randomized recordings included 10 recordings from each rating group of “pass,” “pass with difficulty" (pwd), and “fail.” Skill ratings, confidence ratings, time to decision, and SR Eyelink 1000+ monitored eye movements were recorded. Results: No significant group differences were found in the correct identification skill rating, though significant relationships were found with experts rating higher confidence in their decision-making and generally faster reaction times. While trends of eye movements differences were found between groups, only the number of areas of interest viewed in pwd videos was a potential rating correctness predictor. Conclusion: Improved confidence in decision-making did not mean improved assessment accuracy. The pwd video stimuli created the opportunity for assessing observation patterns differences. Further study is recommended.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".