The Effects of Image Speed on the Performance of a Soccer Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study tested the timing element of the PETTLEP approach to motor imagery (Holmes & Collins, 2001) by examining the effects of 3 imagery conditions on the performance of a soccer dribbling task. The imagery conditions were also compared with physical-practice and control-group performance. Ninety-seven participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 5 conditions: real-time imagery, slow-motion imagery, slow motion concluded with real-time imagery, physical practice, or control. Results indicated that all 4 experimental groups significantly improved time and error performance to the same degree after the intervention. The control group significantly improved time but not error performance from pre- to post-intervention. The results of the current study provide inconclusive findings related to the timing element of the PETTLEP approach to motor imagery, however, and do suggest that slow motion might be a viable imagery characteristic. Limitations regarding the examination of slow-motion imagery, possible implications of its use, and suggestions for future image-speed research are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".