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

Response accuracy (M and SE, in % correct) as a function of group (functional, dysfunctional, and control) and test (pre-test, post-test, and retention).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 6: Response accuracy (M and SE, in % correct) as a function of group (functional, dysfunctional, and control) and test (pre-test, post-test, and retention).

Mentions: As depicted in Figure 6, the respective ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for test, F(2,82) = 95.96, p < 0.01, = 0.70, with all groups significantly increasing response accuracy from pre- to post-test (all ps < 0.01) and from pre- to retention test (all ps < 0.01). Although performance slightly decreased from post- to retention test, this difference did not reach significance (all ps > 0.30). However, the test-related main effect was overlain by a significant group × test interaction, F(4,82) = 2.59, p = 0.04, = 0.11. Statistically, this interaction is explained by a virtually identical base level at pre-test for all three groups, F(2,44) = 0.01, p = 0.99, < 0.00, but learning differences with the largest improvement for the control group (pre-post: +36.8%, p < 0.01, = 0.79; pre-ret: 36.1%, p < 0.01, = 0.81), followed by the functional group (pre-post: +29.4%, p < 0.01, = 0.69; pre-ret: +27.9%, p < 0.01, = 0.68) and the dysfunctional group (pre-post: +22.2%, p < 0.01, = 0.68; pre-ret: +18.4%, p < 0.01, = 0.71). In more detail, in the post-test, F(2,44) = 3.53, p < 0.05, = 0.15, as well as in the retention test, F(2,44) = 5.25, p < 0.05, = 0.20, a significant main effect for group appeared with the control group, outperforming the dysfunctional group in both tests (all ps < 0.05, all > 0.21). In contrast, no differences were revealed between the functional and the control groups (all ps > 0.15, all < 0.07, all 1-β > 0.40) and between the functional and the dysfunctional groups (all ps > 0.08, all < 0.09, all 1-β > 0.34). Hence, the results show that (1) over the course of learning all groups improved response accuracy but (2) the functional showed no improvements when compared to the control group and (3) the functional cue group did not significantly differ from the dysfunctional group in post- and retention test.


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)

Response accuracy (M and SE, in % correct) as a function of group (functional, dysfunctional, and control) and test (pre-test, post-test, and retention).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 6: Response accuracy (M and SE, in % correct) as a function of group (functional, dysfunctional, and control) and test (pre-test, post-test, and retention).
Mentions: As depicted in Figure 6, the respective ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for test, F(2,82) = 95.96, p < 0.01, = 0.70, with all groups significantly increasing response accuracy from pre- to post-test (all ps < 0.01) and from pre- to retention test (all ps < 0.01). Although performance slightly decreased from post- to retention test, this difference did not reach significance (all ps > 0.30). However, the test-related main effect was overlain by a significant group × test interaction, F(4,82) = 2.59, p = 0.04, = 0.11. Statistically, this interaction is explained by a virtually identical base level at pre-test for all three groups, F(2,44) = 0.01, p = 0.99, < 0.00, but learning differences with the largest improvement for the control group (pre-post: +36.8%, p < 0.01, = 0.79; pre-ret: 36.1%, p < 0.01, = 0.81), followed by the functional group (pre-post: +29.4%, p < 0.01, = 0.69; pre-ret: +27.9%, p < 0.01, = 0.68) and the dysfunctional group (pre-post: +22.2%, p < 0.01, = 0.68; pre-ret: +18.4%, p < 0.01, = 0.71). In more detail, in the post-test, F(2,44) = 3.53, p < 0.05, = 0.15, as well as in the retention test, F(2,44) = 5.25, p < 0.05, = 0.20, a significant main effect for group appeared with the control group, outperforming the dysfunctional group in both tests (all ps < 0.05, all > 0.21). In contrast, no differences were revealed between the functional and the control groups (all ps > 0.15, all < 0.07, all 1-β > 0.40) and between the functional and the dysfunctional groups (all ps > 0.08, all < 0.09, all 1-β > 0.34). Hence, the results show that (1) over the course of learning all groups improved response accuracy but (2) the functional showed no improvements when compared to the control group and (3) the functional cue group did not significantly differ from the dysfunctional group in post- and retention test.

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