Syncing to perform? A naturalistic uncontrolled prospective case study of emotional and physiological synchrony in a team of male volleyball athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group processes are important for promoting relational and performance-related outcomes in sport; however, research exploring emotional and physiological synchrony and performance outcomes is rare. The objective of this study was to examine perceived emotional synchrony, physiological synchrony, and performance among male volleyball players using a naturalistic uncontrolled prospective case study approach over nine practices. Athletes participated in a coach-led pre-practice group visualization routine, while their heart rate and heart rate variability were continuously monitored. Athletes completed post-practice measures of emotional synchrony, and athletes and coaches completed ratings of individual and team performance. Emotional and physiological synchrony were not significantly correlated, but they were differentially related to performance outcomes, and there were significant interaction effects between physiological synchrony and time. Athletes' ratings of their own and their team's performance were associated with their perceived emotional synchrony. Coach performance ratings were associated with pre-practice team physiological synchrony but were unrelated to athletes' perceived emotional synchrony. Heart rate synchrony was associated with athlete and coach performance ratings and may be important for team dynamics and performance outcomes. The findings demonstrate evidence for emotional and physiological synchrony among athletes, providing a platform for future research examining processes and impacts of synchrony in sport.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".