Task Representativeness Flashcards
The Expert Performance Approach
Ericsson and Smith
Expert performance in a given domain
3 Key Aspects
Expert novice differences observed in situ
Ascertain mechanisms behind differences and represent situation
Examine practice histories and learning studies
Ecological Validity
Brunswick
The father of task representativeness
Give attention to organism environment as well as organism
Originally perceptual cues used by individuals predict future events of environment
Now apply to larger population
Representative Design
Pinder et al
Small changes in task constraints lead to large changes in performance outcomes
Static tests lack functionality and don’t reflect constraints of environment, need dynamic intervention that consider interaction of constraints
Specificity of Learning Hypothesis
Henry (1968)
Each motor skill involves a highly unique and specific combination of abilities and skills
Best way to learn skill is repeated practice under conditions which represent the exact demands of the task
Crazy Catch for cricketers
Inattentional Blindness
When attention is diverted to another task, observers often fail to perceive an unexpected object, even if it appears at fixation (Mack and Rock)
Memmert (2006)
Effect less with expert basketball players versus novice?
Selection of participant changes- makes it more/less representative
% observers noticing unexpected object
Sig dif between expert and novice (expert noticed more) no dif between junior and adult
Especial Skills
Skill after massive amounts of practice that has special status within a generalisable class of motor skills and is distinguished by its enhanced performance (Keetch)
Underpinned by task representativeness- better than expected performance only occurs under specific over practiced contexts
Failure to adopt TR = failure to identify especial skills
Perception Action Coupling
Gibson
Perception and action functionally independent
Manipulate one likely to unintentionally alter the other
P-A coupling- degree to which study design retains p and a components of a real world task
Perception Action Coupling
Experimental studies
Traditionally involve simple movement response to a complex stimuli e.g view serve, press arrow key
Provides reliable data in a convenient manner, but also removes essential p-a coupling
= findings may underestimate (or fail to find) the expert advantage in performance
Perception Action Coupling
Farrow and Abernathy (2003)
Does the degree of p-a coupling affect the ability to anticipate the direction of a tennis serve? Yes
P-A coupled = expert and novice sig dif accuracy %, expert higher
Uncoupled = similar % accuracy
Roca, Williams and Ford (2014)
Do the cognitive processes of semi professional footballers differ when they are allowed to move in conjunction with a video sequence compared to when they remain stationary?
Measured: anticipation accuracy, decision making and verbal report data
No sig for anticipation, almost sig for decision (movement better)
Verbal- movement more monitoring statements and more in general
= ability to process info effectively reduced when lower natural connection between stimulus and response
Lee et al (2013)
When athletes attempt to intercept a videoed opponent does it matter whether it is in 2D or 3D?
Where fixated (total number and duration) and reaction time
No sig dif in reaction time
3D fixated less on opponents body
Suggesting need to invest less perceptual processing time towards opponents movement compared to 2D to achieve same results
Allowing them to scan and pick up info from other areas that could benefit them in more complex tasks
Vignais et al (2009)
Does the level of detail of a virtual throwing action influence a handball goalkeepers motor response?
Measured: time to respond, % shots saved, radial error and kinematics of movement
Pictures from dots to full person
Reaction and performance (save % and radial error) no difference with level of detail
Low detail does result in change in kinematics of movement compared to higher detail
Suggesting goal keepers are forced to regulate their actions based on different visual info under LOD but still get same success
Evidence Against
Meir et al (2013)
Is reactive agility performance better when responding to a sport specific (rugby) stimulus compared to generic?
Sport specific: experimenter steps forward with their right/left leg
Generic: experimenter puts their right/left arm out
Stimulus type did not affect reactive agility performance but method of ball carry did - slower with ball being carried than without
Demonstrating different results are obtained (and different conclusions) when a task is made more representative of sport environment
Evidence against
Spittle et al (2010)
Does the screen size affect decision-making performance of expert intermediate and novice basketball players?
A larger screen produces more lifelike images and therefore should exhibit expert novice differences in performance (according to expert performance approach and task representative design)
No significant difference in decision-making performance with either screen size
Smaller sizes provided a similar amount of visual information as larger screens but only decision-making accuracy was measured
Other studies such as Lee, Vignais etc suggest that differences may have been found if the underlying mechanisms were explored
Kings time et al (2003)
Posner cueing task used to measure attention
Performance in this indicates attention all ability in everyday tasks
Target detection faster in cued box but only when arrow is predictive
But eyes are different to arrows..
contrary to traditional thinking target detection was quicker for the cued location despite it being nonpredictive gaze
