Whose side are you on? Observing the influence of lateralized perceptual and motor experience on soccer passes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Athletes become experts at predicting the outcomes of sport-specific actions, which may be informed by perceptual familiarity and motor experiences. Examining aspects of laterality in action prediction offers insight into the informative roles of visual and motor experience in anticipation tasks. Previous work found that spatial projectile prediction accuracy was improved when viewing right-sided actions, regardless of the athletes’ own limb dominance (e.g., Hagemann, 2009). The current study employed left- and right-footed experienced soccer players to predict the timing of a temporally occluded pass with a physical pass response. Regarding the timing characteristics, the participants’ response times were shorter when responding to right-footed passes at faster speeds. Yet right-footed participants exhibited more asymmetric timing between the passer’s footedness at slow versus fast pass speeds. Findings suggest that anticipatory skill is driven by perceptual familiarity but is also influenced by motor experience.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".