The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
As we get more and more skilled, meaning as we make fewer and fewer errors per a given session per unit time, that's when attention can start to migrate from one feature such as the motor sequence to another feature which is perhaps one's stance and another sequence, component of the sequence, which would be the result that's one getting on a trial to trial basis.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
As you start incorporating more sessions, you start to gain some skill level, learning to harness and focus your attention on particular features of the movement independent of the rewards and the feedback.
But once you're familiar with something and you're performing it well every once in a while, you're accomplishing it better every once in a while, then you can start to cue your attention in very deliberate ways.
as we get more and more skilled meaning as we make fewer and fewer errors per a given session per unit time that's when attention can start to migrate from one feature such as the motor sequence to another feature which is perhaps um one's stance and another sequence um component of the sequence which would be the result