Limits...
Perceptual Training in Beach Volleyball Defence: Different Effects of Gaze-Path Cueing on Gaze and Decision-Making.

Klostermann A, Vater C, Kredel R, Hossner EJ - Front Psychol (2015)

Bottom Line: However, recent findings challenge this method, especially, with regards to its actual effects on gaze behavior.Gaze analyses revealed learning effects for the dysfunctional group only.Hence, the results confirm cueing effects on gaze behavior, but they also question its benefit for enhancing decision-making.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Sport Science, University of Bern Bern, Switzerland.

ABSTRACT
For perceptual-cognitive skill training, a variety of intervention methods has been proposed, including the so-called "color-cueing method" which aims on superior gaze-path learning by applying visual markers. However, recent findings challenge this method, especially, with regards to its actual effects on gaze behavior. Consequently, after a preparatory study on the identification of appropriate visual cues for life-size displays, a perceptual-training experiment on decision-making in beach volleyball was conducted, contrasting two cueing interventions (functional vs. dysfunctional gaze path) with a conservative control condition (anticipation-related instructions). Gaze analyses revealed learning effects for the dysfunctional group only. Regarding decision-making, all groups showed enhanced performance with largest improvements for the control group followed by the functional and the dysfunctional group. Hence, the results confirm cueing effects on gaze behavior, but they also question its benefit for enhancing decision-making. However, before completely denying the method's value, optimisations should be checked regarding, for instance, cueing-pattern characteristics and gaze-related feedback.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Fixation onset, fixation offset, and response time (M and SE, in ms) relative to the moment of subsequent ball reception (=0) as a function of cued vs. non-cued trials for all four marker types (small/static, small/flashing, large/static, and large/flashing).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4664622&req=5

Figure 3: Fixation onset, fixation offset, and response time (M and SE, in ms) relative to the moment of subsequent ball reception (=0) as a function of cued vs. non-cued trials for all four marker types (small/static, small/flashing, large/static, and large/flashing).

Mentions: As depicted in Figure 2, for response accuracy, a significant main effect was found, F(1,36) = 6.93, p < 0.01, = 0.16, with more accurate decisions in cued (M = 88.3%, SE = 1.3%) compared with non-cued (M = 85.5%, SE = 1.5%) trials. Regarding the moment of decision, as illustrated in Figure 3 as dashed lines, the respective ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for cueing, F(1,36) = 48.73, p < 0.01, = 0.58, as well as a significant three-way interaction, F(1,36) = 6.66, p = 0.01, = 0.16: whereas, with small/static cues, participants decided earlier in cued trials compared with non-cued trails by trend only (p = 0.28, = 0.16), this difference reached significance for the remaining three cue conditions (small/flashing: p < 0.01, = 0.80; large/static: p < 0.01, = 0.70; large/flashing: p = 0.02, = 0.48). Further significant main and interaction effects for decision-making and gaze behavior were not found (all ps > 0.14).


Perceptual Training in Beach Volleyball Defence: Different Effects of Gaze-Path Cueing on Gaze and Decision-Making.

Klostermann A, Vater C, Kredel R, Hossner EJ - Front Psychol (2015)

Fixation onset, fixation offset, and response time (M and SE, in ms) relative to the moment of subsequent ball reception (=0) as a function of cued vs. non-cued trials for all four marker types (small/static, small/flashing, large/static, and large/flashing).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4664622&req=5

Figure 3: Fixation onset, fixation offset, and response time (M and SE, in ms) relative to the moment of subsequent ball reception (=0) as a function of cued vs. non-cued trials for all four marker types (small/static, small/flashing, large/static, and large/flashing).
Mentions: As depicted in Figure 2, for response accuracy, a significant main effect was found, F(1,36) = 6.93, p < 0.01, = 0.16, with more accurate decisions in cued (M = 88.3%, SE = 1.3%) compared with non-cued (M = 85.5%, SE = 1.5%) trials. Regarding the moment of decision, as illustrated in Figure 3 as dashed lines, the respective ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for cueing, F(1,36) = 48.73, p < 0.01, = 0.58, as well as a significant three-way interaction, F(1,36) = 6.66, p = 0.01, = 0.16: whereas, with small/static cues, participants decided earlier in cued trials compared with non-cued trails by trend only (p = 0.28, = 0.16), this difference reached significance for the remaining three cue conditions (small/flashing: p < 0.01, = 0.80; large/static: p < 0.01, = 0.70; large/flashing: p = 0.02, = 0.48). Further significant main and interaction effects for decision-making and gaze behavior were not found (all ps > 0.14).

Bottom Line: However, recent findings challenge this method, especially, with regards to its actual effects on gaze behavior.Gaze analyses revealed learning effects for the dysfunctional group only.Hence, the results confirm cueing effects on gaze behavior, but they also question its benefit for enhancing decision-making.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Sport Science, University of Bern Bern, Switzerland.

ABSTRACT
For perceptual-cognitive skill training, a variety of intervention methods has been proposed, including the so-called "color-cueing method" which aims on superior gaze-path learning by applying visual markers. However, recent findings challenge this method, especially, with regards to its actual effects on gaze behavior. Consequently, after a preparatory study on the identification of appropriate visual cues for life-size displays, a perceptual-training experiment on decision-making in beach volleyball was conducted, contrasting two cueing interventions (functional vs. dysfunctional gaze path) with a conservative control condition (anticipation-related instructions). Gaze analyses revealed learning effects for the dysfunctional group only. Regarding decision-making, all groups showed enhanced performance with largest improvements for the control group followed by the functional and the dysfunctional group. Hence, the results confirm cueing effects on gaze behavior, but they also question its benefit for enhancing decision-making. However, before completely denying the method's value, optimisations should be checked regarding, for instance, cueing-pattern characteristics and gaze-related feedback.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus