Short-term evidence of partner-induced performance biases in simultaneous and alternating dyad practice in golf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Actions in social settings are often adapted based on co-actors. This adaptation can occur because one actor "co-represents" the actions and plans of another. Co-representation can result in motor contagion errors, whereby another's actions unintentionally interfere with (negatively impact) the actor. In sports, practice often takes place simultaneously or alternating with a partner. Co-representation of another's task could either harm or benefit skill retention and transfer, with benefits due to variable experiences and effortful processes in practice. Here, dyad groups that either alternated or simultaneously practiced golf putting to different (near vs. far) targets were compared to alone groups (n = 30/group). We focused on errors in distance from the target and expected overshooting for near-target partners paired with far-target partners (and undershooting for far-target partners paired with near-target partners), when compared to alone groups. There was evidence of co-representation for near-target partners paired with far-target partners. We also saw trial-to-trial error-based adjustments based on a partner's outcome in alternating dyads. Despite differences in practice between dyad and alone groups, these did not lead to costs or benefits at retention or transfer. We conclude that the social-context of motor learning impacts behaviours of co-actors, but not to the detriment of overall learning.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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".