Expert Performance in Sport Flashcards
Jackson et al. (2006) - poor performance under pressure
Poorer performance in lab-based studies than manipulated pressure
Toma (2017) - poor performance under pressure
Lower free throw success at the end of basketball matches when the score is close
Lidor et al. (2021) - poor performance under pressure
Lower 3-point shot success for open than contested shots in basketball
Senta et al. (2024) - Muscle tension as a direct effect of pressure
- task was to move a lever a specific amount
- had 4 days of learning prior to experiment
- tested in conditions with increasing reward
- some people did better under highest reward conditions, and some did worse
- biceps and triceps muscles tension increased for those who performed worse under pressure
- performance under pressure was correlated with the activation of the sympathetic nervous system
Turner at al. (2014) - implication of task framing on TCTSA (bean bags)
- changed instructions of bean bag throw to manipulate resource appraisal
Challenge group - high self-efficacy, approach focus, high control
Threat group - low self-efficacy, avoidance focus, low control - challenge group did significantly better than threat group
- challenge group had increased cardiac output but lower blood pressure than threat group
Turner at al. (2014) - implication of task framing on TCTSA (climbers)
-changed instructions of climbing video
Challenge group - high self-efficacy, approach focus, high control
- more attended session, higher ratings of self-efficacy and control, higher cardiac output
Threat group - low self-efficacy, avoidance focus, low control
- less attended session, higher ratings of excitement and happiness (unexpected)
Smith et al. (2001) - mental effort and performance in low vs high anxious
- volleyball performance over a season (examining close call sets)
- both high and low anxious expend more mental effort in high pressure situations
- performance decreases in high anxious and increases in low anxious athletes
Janelle et al. (1999) - pressure on central and peripheral tasks
- racing simulator under pressure
- central task = racing simulator
- peripheral task = respond to red lights, ignore green lights
in the competition phase - response to red light increased and lap times were slower
Wilson et al. (2009) - attention to threat-related stimuli (football)
- high pressure increased fixations (26%) and fixation time (56%) to goal keeper
- kicks 14cm closer to centre of goal indicating decreased efficiency
Woodman et al. (2015) - ironic process theory
- male hockey players
- ‘ironic’ errors increased under high anxiety (you are more likely to hit the zone you are trying to avoid)
Gray et al. (2017) - ironic effects and reinvestment
- experienced baseball pitchers
target only group = told to aim at target - no ironic error failures
ironic display group = aim at target but also had an ironic display - increased hits into the ironic zone by 300%
Oudejans & Pijpers (2009) - acclimatisation training
- meta analysis of 14 studies of basketball players
- anxiety manipulation did not create high anxiety situations in training
- after pressure training no decrease in anxiety feeling in competitions BUT performance was better
- suggests techniques have been learnt to cope with pressure / anxiety
Jordet & Elferink-Gemser (2012) - stressors in football matches
- stressors were taken at the end of extra time (n=35)
- 17 were relating to uncertainty over penalty takers and kick order
- 19 were relating to the wait
- 4 related to the walk up to the penalty
Wrisberg & Pein (1992) - importance of routine consistency
- varsity (expert) and intramural (beginner) basketball players
- better players had more ‘internally’ consistent routines
- even when routine time stayed the same, poor performance increased when rhythm varied
Lonsdale & Tam (2008) - routine time and rhythm
- NBA play off games
- most successful when normal routine is followed
- adding or changing behaviour decreased performance
- simply omitting behaviour does not change performance
Jackson & Baker (2001) - routines and task difficulty
- routine / concentration time increased by 50% from easy to difficult rugby kicks
- concentration time strongly relates to ‘post angle’
- relationship between kick difficulty and time spent before kick BUT kickers thought they were spending the same amount of time
Jonny Wilkinson - international rugby and Singer’s 5-step strategy
- routine simplified to 3 simple cues: ‘spot’, ‘line’ and ‘follow through’
- ready (clasped hands as a mental barrier against distractions)
- image (visualise the ball - ‘line’ and ‘follow through’)
- focus (concentrate on a specific part of the ball, and a specific point in the crowd - ‘spot’)
Vine et al. (2011) - ‘quiet eye’ training
- 22 high skilled golfers, 3 & 10 ft putts at high and low pressure
- training included feedback and instruction on eye gaze in relation to the ‘elite prototype’
- QE trained maintained performance under high pressure (24% difference in performance between QE trained or not)
- QE trained had 2 fewer putts per round
- Qe time stops any rushing due to pressure
Allard et al. (1980) - pattern recall
- compared recognition and recall ability for structured and unstructured images of university basketball players and non-players
- expertise effect:
— players better on recognition, but expertise effect disappears when there is no structure in game tactics
Williams et al. (2006) - pattern recognition
- skilled vs recreational footballers tested on recognition test
- test 1 = retain pattern of players but got rid of superficial information (changed players to dots)
- skilled footballers had faster and more accurate recognition (expertise effect)
- test 2 = occulsion of player information (how players interact with each other)
- occulsion mostly affected skilled players because they make ‘meaningful association’ from players visual information
Murphy et al. (2024) - pattern recognition
- tested ability to identify threat (shooter) as play evolves (10 seconds –> 2 seconds before shot is taken)
- shooter identification became progressively earlier as goalkeeper expertise increases
Macquet (2009) - Recognition-Primed Decision Model
- post match interviews with volleyball players watching match footage
- large majority were Level 1 of Klein’s Recognition-Primed Decision Model
Raab & Johnson (2007) - gut instinct
- 60% of handball players ‘take the first’ option when making decisions (and its usually the best one)
Klatt et al. (2019) - decision generation
- German and Brazilian academy footballers
- showed clips of play and then asked to pick decision, then given 45 seconds to pick more options
- quality of first option correlated with number of options generated
- first option usually best, and quality decreases with number of decisions generated
Burnett at al. (2017) - heuristics and bias
- netball umpires
- high decision ruminators were more likely to ‘swallow the whistle’ (not make a decision) especially in Q1 and 3
- fewer decisions were made against the home team
Williams et al. (1994) - visual search behaviour
- skilled football players have faster decision making, and make more fixations for a shorter time
- recreational players spend more time ‘ball watching’ than skilled players
- suggests efficiency is about scanning
Vaeyens et al. (2007) - visual search behaviour
- ‘successful’ and ‘non-successful’ football players watch a video and then asked to anticipate next pass by physically responding
- accuracy for unsuccessful players decreases more as difficulty increases
- successful players engage in more frequent and faster scanning of game play
Race et al. (2013) - visual search behaviour
- professional vs recreational footballers take part in a near vs far task
- far task = more fixations of short duration
- near task = less fixations of long duration
- recreational footballers = less difference between 2 conditions as they are less sensitive to stimuli
Ryu et al. (2013) - central and peripheral vision
- skilled vs recreational basketball players
- conditions = full vision vs no peripheral info vs only peripheral info
- skilled players made faster and more accurate decisions in all conditions
- skilled had greatest advantage in ‘only peripheral condition’ as they have better contextual knowledge
Baker et al. (2003) - practice on decision making
Evidence describing time practicing to achieve national level
- between 7-20 years of sport-specific involvement
- between 600 and 6000 hours of sport-specific practice
- between 3 and 14 other sport activities (negative correlation between additional sport activities and sport practice housr needed)
McLeod (1987) - reaction time
- cricket batters can react to short pitched balls, but not medium ones
- they do not have a ‘built in’ advantage
Abernethy (1990) - temporal occulsion paradigm
Are skilled squash players better at reading depth of shot?
- experts make less errors than novices
- novices do slightly better than chance BUT experts do much better and improve as shots evolve
- squash ability is correlated with anticipation ability
Loffing & Hageman (2014) - occulsion
- expert vs novice handball players had to choose whether the shot would be a ‘hard shot’ or ‘lob shot’
- experts accuracy was much higher than novices (even right before shot)
Jackson & Morgan (2007) - occulsion
- skilled vs recreational vs novice tennis players
- visual occlusion of body parts during a serve
- removal of ball substantially impaired skilled players judgement accuracy
- (arm + racket) and ball support anticipation skill
- removing ball toss does NOT affect experts confidence in judgement, so this must be useful for anticipation but we don’t know how
Huys et al. (2009) - occlusion
- recreational tennis players either perceptually skilled or unskilled
- occluded different body parts
- occlusion of multiple segments impaired the skilled group
- skilled group were similarly accurate across all conditions
- supports hypothesis of global information usage
Dicks et al. (2010) - visual fixations
- expert GKs fixate on ball when saving penalty kicks
- ball is used as a time cue
- use ball as anticipation cue
Canal-Bruland et al. (2018) - auditory info
- ball is occluded and must guess where on tennis court ball will land
- volume of racket ball contact was manipulated
- when sound is louder, we overestimate distance / strength of hit
- auditory information is important for anticipation but also can lead to deception
Murphy et al. (2019) - contextual anticipation
- tennis video vs animated position only
- novice accuracy is the same in both condition (they gain nothing from addition of postural information as they don’t understand the kinematics)
- experts improve in the video condition as they are able to better judge using body posture
Loffing et al. (2015) - anticipation and deception in sequences
- predict final volleyball shot in a sequence
- experts quickly pick up on sequence and improve rapidly unless last shot is inconsistent
- patterns in shots lead to players being deceived when the last shot was incongruent
- novices don’t decrease in performance because they were unable to figure out sequence at all
Milazzo et al. (2016) - anticipation in sequences
- reaction time to karate attacks tested (every 5th attack is the same)
- experts quickly pick up on pattern, so reaction time increases
- novices do not
Poulter et al. (2005) - anticipation training
- implicit and explicit training
- after both training novices massively improved ability to anticipate penalty kick direction
BUT - accuracy was higher the Prem footballers so is not representative of real training
Jackson & Canal-Bruland (2019) - disguise and deception
- perfect disguise should reduce you to a 50/50 guess
- perfect deception should produce and incorrect choice every time
Jackson et al. (2006) - deception
- expert rugby players are deceived less than novices
- expert rugby players are more deceptive than novices
Brault et al. (2012) - deception
- experts more attuned to centre of mass (needed for perception of deception)
Warren-West et al. (2021) - deception
- high skilled rugby players focussed more on hips and abdomen (compared to low skilled = head)
- improvement in play after deception also relied on these central areas
Smeeton & Williams (2012) - deception
- deception and exaggeration are seen to be similar
- non-deceptive but exaggerated actions were predicted similarly because deceptive actions have built in exaggerations
Navia at al. (2013) - expectations
- told % likelihood of shooting to a particular side of goal
- fewer kicks were saved on the low probability side
- expectations influence actions
Guldenpenning et al (2023) - misdirection
- novice basketball players
- given player preference data
- head fake effect was amplified when head direction matched expectations
- slower reaction time and higher error rate
Jackson et al. (2020) - super detection theory
- high skilled players bite on deceptive actions when biased to context probability
Hadlow et al. (2018) - MPTF
- modified perceptual training framework
- designed to enhance perception of important cues in order to accurately inform quick decisions
- focus on increasing sensitivity and make responses more effective
Abernathy et al. (1999) - perceptual training intervention
- novice squash players (issue = does it work on experts)
- spatial and temporal occlusion training
- 25% improvement in error rate after training
- control and placebo groups did not improve = training works
Singer et al. (2014) - perceptual training
- beginners decision time and response accuracy improved (42-56%)
Farrow et al. (1998) - perceptual training
- beginners decision time improved BUT DECREASE in response accuracy
Smeeton et al. (2005) - perceptual training
- gave implicit and explicit instructions to beginner tennis players
- in anxious conditions, explicit training group performed 17% worse
- implicit training groups performed better in pressure situations
Milazzo et al. (2014) - perceptual training
- skilled karate players increased in accuracy and decreased reaction time after using implicit perceptual training
