PCE and decision making

Question 1

implications for the perceiver

Answer 1

Reduce temporal and event uncertainty

Coaching players/athlete to be aware of relevant cues

Question 2

implications for the actor (deceiver)

Answer 2

Disguise event and temporal cues – increase uncertainty

Question 3

behavioural ‘arms race’

Answer 3

see slides

Question 4

problems with occlusion paradigm

Answer 4

no action - perceptual judgement

situational probabilities - state of play - how the game is going - past experience - only look for info that supports hyp

small screen - might not give info about what experts do in real life situs

loss of audition

Question 5

are you the next iniesta - limitations

Answer 5

if can’t make pass may not have enough benefit

Question 6

data from ECFC

Answer 6

at - youth did better - foundation found it too difficult post - foundation

worse performers don’t get better with more information

game specific training - e.g. injured, - create strategies - see what other options there are - get each player to say what should happen next - team should all say the same - task cohesion

other applications
- military

Question 7

Causer and Williams (2015)

Answer 7

manipulated football uniforms - conceal alignment of hips

anticipate PK outcome

3 occlusion points: 160 and 80ms before and impact

skilled more accurate

skilled more affected by manipulations

Question 8

Jackson et al. (2006)

Answer 8

skilled and novice rugby players

predict direction change of expert and novice players with and without deceptive movement

novices susceptible to deception

both more confident on trials containing deception

Question 9

Belling et al. (2015)

Answer 9

athletes completed paper-pencil and online tests

support for LTWM observed during decision making

specific soccer tests better for predicting skill than general tests