From lab to real life: Is there a link between lab-based and ecological assessment of Procedural Perceptual-Motor Learning tasks?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Procedural Perceptual-Motor Learning (PPML) refers to the process leading to the acquisition of new motor skills through repeated practice. It is crucial to (re-)acquire skills needed in daily life and rehabilitation. It can be divided in two processes: motor sequence learning (SL) and sensorimotor adaptation (SA). SL refers to the acquisition of a sequence of actions that follows a precise order, while SA involves continuously adjusting motor outputs to compensate for environmental or internal disturbances. These two processes are typically measured using different lab-based tasks and are presumed to play a role in ecological/ naturalistic tasks. However, to our knowledge, no study examined the relationship between performance on lab-based tasks and ecological/ naturalistic tasks. To address this gap, we designed two lab-based tasks and six ecological tasks assessing SL and SA in an original research including 42 participants (young adults). After ensuring with non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA that all the tasks presented features of learning (all 15.1 <χ² < 142; p < 0.5), Spearman's rank correlation tests were performed between each lab-based task measuring SL and SA and the six ecological tasks. Our findings reveal low to moderate correlations between lab-based and ecological tasks measuring SL and SA (0.265 < rho < 0.395; p < 0.05). This suggests that the lab-based tasks partially reflect PPML as it occurs in everyday life. We believe that the partial ecological validity of these lab-based tasks is essential for their use, especially in the context of clinical evaluation prior to rehabilitation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".