Repeated stroboscopic vision training improves anticipation skill without changing perceptual-cognitive skills in soccer players
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".