Self-Reported Focus of Attention During Different Batting Conditions in Varsity Baseball Players.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The motor learning literature has demonstrated that one’s focus of attention, whether internal or external should be dependent on the task objective, which is referred to as goal- instruction coupling. The present study was the first study to investigate baseball batting focus of attention strategies across different environmental conditions while also comparing the participants responses to their coaches interpreted instructions. The present experiment examined Ontario University Athletics level baseball batters focus of attention (internal, external, or ‘other’) across three different batting conditions (practice, on deck and in game), compared to their coaches interpreted instruction (interpreted by the athletes) under the practice and in game conditions. The participants completed a questionnaire identifying their focus of attention strategies under the different batting conditions as well as their coaches interpreted focus of attention instruction under the practice and in game conditions. The results showed that a condition that favours an internal focus had the participants predominately report using an internal focus of attention (practice condition), while as a condition that favours an external focus had the participants report using an external focus of attention (in game condition); therefore, supporting the goal-instruction coupling theory. A majority of coaches also preferred a focus of attention strategy depending on the batting condition and task objective, except for the coaches interpreted focus of attention strategy during the in-game at bats. Overall, these findings demonstrate the value of goal-instruction coupling for optimizing one’s focus of attention strategy selection as well as demonstrating that participants were more likely to share a similar focus of attention strategy with their coaches preferred focus of attention.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".