Repeated stroboscopic vision training improves anticipation skill without changing perceptual-cognitive skills in soccer players
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
In this study we aimed to analyze the repeated effect of stroboscopic vision training on perceptual-cognitive skills in soccer players. A total of 28 male soccer players participated in this experimental and randomized study with parallel groups. The soccer players were pair-matched according to perceptual-cognitive skills and randomized into two groups: Stroboscopic vision training and Control. Multiple object tracking, anticipation, and decision-making skills were measured before and after the 8-week intervention. An increase in multiple object tracking (p < 0.05) and decision-making skills (p < 0.05) from baseline to post-experiment was found in both groups without main group effect (p > 0.05). The findings showed an increase in anticipation skill from baseline to post-experiment in both groups (p < 0.05), with higher anticipation skill for the stroboscopic group than in the control group post-experiment (p < 0.05). Thus, we conclude that repeated stroboscopic vision training could improve anticipation skill in soccer athletes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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