Cognitive load reduces interference by head fakes in basketball

Güldenpenning, Iris; Kunde, Wilfried; Weigelt, Matthias

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103013

Cited by 12 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This could be interpreted as a preliminary and modest suggestion of an existence of the inverted U-shaped curve of the relationship between cognitive load and distractibility. However, it is worth considering that although significant, the level of distraction itself was not high in any of the load conditions, which is similar to prior studies in both the visual (Güldenpenning et al, 2020 ; Scharinger et al, 2015 ) and the auditory (Berti & Schröger, 2003 ; Guerreiro et al, 2013 ) domains. Besides, note that the male voice was always used as the target stimulus and the female voice was the distractor and one possibility is that distinguishing a male voice from a female distractor might not present a great difficulty.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…As specified in the Statistical analysis section, a set of informed priors, based on five previous studies conducted within the single-task paradigm similar to the present experiment (Berti & Schröger, 2003;Guerreiro et al, 2013;Güldenpenning et al, 2020;SanMiguel et al, 2008;Scharinger et al, 2015), was formalized for the interaction parameters The forest plot in Fig. 3 shows the estimated interaction parameters of interest for the effects reported in these previous studies, as well as the meta-analytic estimate.…”

Section: Prior Knowledge and Its Impact On Estimated Parameters For Rtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such settings, apart from the load on working memory and inhibition, potentially place high demand on shifting as the participant has to shift between the working memory set and the inhibition task (Diamond, 2013 ; Miyake & Friedman, 2012 ). Instead, reduced distraction has been found in experiments with a single task that contains a manipulation of working memory load and some distraction (Berti & Schröger, 2003 ; Guerreiro, Murphy, & Van Gerven, 2013 ; Güldenpenning, Kunde, & Weigelt, 2020 ; SanMiguel et al, 2008 ; Sörqvist, Stenfelt et al, 2012 ; Sörqvist, Nöstl et al, 2012 ) such that there is no need to divide and/or shift attention between two tasks. Constant shifting of attention between two unrelated tasks might leave little cognitive control for filtering out distraction and lead to poor focus on target stimuli.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Auditory selective attention under working memory load

Bayramova

Toffalini

Bonato

et al. 2020

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can cognitive load enhance concentration on task-relevant information and help filter out distractors? Most of the prior research in the area of selective attention has focused on visual attention or cross-modal distraction and has yielded controversial results. Here, we studied whether working memory load can facilitate selective attention when both target and distractor stimuli are auditory. We used a letter n-back task with four levels of working memory load and two levels of distraction: congruent and incongruent distractors. This combination of updating and inhibition tasks allowed us to manipulate working memory load within the selective attention task. Participants sat in front of three loudspeakers and were asked to attend to the letter presented from the central loudspeaker while ignoring that presented from the flanking ones (spoken by a different person), which could be the same letter as the central one (congruent) or a different (incongruent) letter. Their task was to respond whether or not the central letter matched the letter presented n (0, 1, 2, or 3) trials back. Distraction was measured in terms of the difference in reaction time and accuracy on trials with incongruent versus congruent flankers. We found reduced interference from incongruent flankers in 2- and 3-back conditions compared to 0- and 1-back conditions, whereby higher working memory load almost negated the effect of incongruent flankers. These results suggest that high load on verbal working memory can facilitate inhibition of distractors in the auditory domain rather than make it more difficult as sometimes claimed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Prior Knowledge and Its Impact On Estimated Parameters For Rtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Auditory selective attention under working memory load

Bayramova

Toffalini

Bonato

et al. 2020

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the head-fake effect has been found with static as well as dynamic images and with simple (i.e., keypress) as well as complex (i.e., whole body movement) responses [ 9 ]. There are some further aspects, which have an impact on the size of the head-fake effect: The head-fake effect is reduced, when the working memory of participants is taxed by another task in a dual-task scenario (e.g., counting backwards by three) [ 10 ]. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) also reduces the head-fake effect, but not catodal stimulation [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A question of (perfect) timing: A preceding head turn increases the head-fake effect in basketball

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many kinds of sports, deceptive actions are frequently used to hamper the anticipation of an opponent. The head fake in basketball is often applied to deceive an observer regarding the direction of a pass. To perform a head fake, a basketball player turns the head in one direction, but passes the ball to the opposite direction. Several studies showed that reactions to passes with head fakes are slower and more error-prone than to passes without head fakes (head-fake effect). The aim of a basketball player is to produce a head-fake effect for as large as possible in the opponent. The question if the timing of the deceptive action influences the size of the head-fake effect has not yet been examined systematically. The present study investigated if the head-fake effect depends on the temporal lag between the head turn and the passing movement. To this end, the stimulus onset asynchrony between head turn, and pass was varied between 0 and 800 ms. The results showed the largest effect when the head turn precedes the pass by 300 ms. This result can be explained better by facilitating the processing of passes without head fake than by making it more difficult to process passes with a head fake. This result is discussed regarding practical implications and conclusions about the underlying mechanism of the head–fake effect in basketball are drawn.

show abstract

“…From the previous studies using static images (e.g., Kunde et al, 2011;Weigelt et al, 2017) or using dynamic videos (e.g., Güldenpenning et al, 2020aGüldenpenning et al, , 2020bGüldenpenning et al, , 2018, the question if the head-fake effect in basketball is based on the processing of the action-irrelevant eye-gaze direction or on the head orientation, or on both, cannot be answered, because the head orientation and eye-gaze direction were always confounded (i.e., head and gaze were always oriented into the same direction). Previous studies on social attention examined the relative impact of eye-gaze direction and head orientation and demonstrated that both cues are automatically processed and represent informative cues for attention capture (e.g., Böckler et al, 2014;Langton, 2000;Langton & Bruce, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Head-Fake Effect in Basketball Is Based on the Processing of Head Orientation, but Not on Gaze Direction

Weigelt¹,

Güldenpenning²,

Steggemann-Weinrich³

2020

PSYCH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The head fake in basketball has been used as a paradigmatic example to investigate the cognitive mechanisms of deceptive actions in sports. When a player looks to one side while passing the ball to the opposite side, responses of the observer are slower and more error prone than when the player looks into the pass direction. It is not known if this head-fake effect is based on the processing of the action-irrelevant gaze direction or on the head orientation, or on both. Three experiments were designed to examine the impact of these two different sources of information conflict during the processing of head fakes in basketball. In Experiment 1, the size of the head-fake effect was not reduced when the eyes of the player were covered. In Experiment 2a and 2b, the relative influence of gaze direction and head orientation was disentangled. In both experiments, the head-fake effect remained fully present when only the head orientation was changed while the eyes gazed into the pass direction, whereas (vice versa) the effect was (almost) gone when the eyes looked away while the head was oriented into the pass direction. These findings suggest that the head-fake effect in basketball is based on the automating processing of the head orientation, but not on the (otherwise socially important) gaze information.

show abstract

Cognitive load reduces interference by head fakes in basketball

Cited by 12 publications

References 27 publications

Auditory selective attention under working memory load

Auditory selective attention under working memory load

A question of (perfect) timing: A preceding head turn increases the head-fake effect in basketball

The Head-Fake Effect in Basketball Is Based on the Processing of Head Orientation, but Not on Gaze Direction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About