Is the head-fake effect in basketball robust against practice? Analyses of trial-by-trial adaptations, frequency distributions, and mixture effects to evaluate effects of practice

Güldenpenning, Iris; Schütz, Christoph; Weigelt, Matthias; Kunde, Wilfried

doi:10.1007/s00426-018-1078-4

Cited by 18 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other areas dealing with inhibition of information or responses, an effort has been made to transfer fundamental research principles to applied settings. For example, it was shown that the conflict resolution process as measured by classical cognitive psychological tasks such as the Stroop task or Eriksen flanker task [ 71 , 72 ] is conceptually similar and abides by the same rules as deceptive actions in sports [ 73 - 75 ]. Interestingly, recent studies provide evidence that even the underlying neural generators of these 2 conceptually analog tasks are similar [ 76 , 77 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective Gamification of the Stop-Signal Task: Two Controlled Laboratory Experiments

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A lack of ability to inhibit prepotent responses, or more generally a lack of impulse control, is associated with several disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and schizophrenia as well as general damage to the prefrontal cortex. A stop-signal task (SST) is a reliable and established measure of response inhibition. However, using the SST as an objective assessment in diagnostic or research-focused settings places significant stress on participants as the task itself requires concentration and cognitive effort and is not particularly engaging. This can lead to decreased motivation to follow task instructions and poor data quality, which can affect assessment efficacy and might increase drop-out rates. Gamification—the application of game-based elements in nongame settings—has shown to improve engaged attention to a cognitive task, thus increasing participant motivation and data quality. Objective This study aims to design a gamified SST that improves participants’ engagement and validate this gamified SST against a standard SST. Methods We described the design of our gamified SST and reported on 2 separate studies that aim to validate the gamified SST relative to a standard SST. In study 1, a within-subject design was used to compare the performance of the SST and a stop-signal game (SSG). In study 2, we added eye tracking to the procedure to determine if overt attention was affected and aimed to replicate the findings from study 1 in a between-subjects design. Furthermore, in both studies, flow and motivational experiences were measured. Results In contrast, the behavioral performance was comparable between the tasks (P<.87; BF01=2.87), and the experience of flow and intrinsic motivation were rated higher in the SSG group, although this difference was not significant. Conclusions Overall, our findings provide evidence that the gamification of SST is possible and that the SSG is enjoyed more. Thus, when participant engagement is critical, we recommend using the SSG instead of the SST.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective Gamification of the Stop-Signal Task: Two Controlled Laboratory Experiments

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other areas dealing with inhibition of information or responses, an effort has been made to transfer fundamental research principles to applied settings. For example, it was shown that the conflict resolution process as measured by classical cognitive psychological tasks such as the Stroop task or Eriksen flanker task [71,72] is conceptually similar and abides by the same rules as deceptive actions in sports [73][74][75]. Interestingly, recent studies provide evidence that even the underlying neural generators of these 2 conceptually analog tasks are similar [76,77].…”

Section: The Stop-signal Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective Gamification of the Stop-Signal Task: Two Controlled Laboratory Experiments (Preprint)

Friehs¹,

Dechant²,

Vedress³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND A lack in the ability to inhibit prepotent responses, or, more generally, a lack of impulse control, is associated with several disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and schizophrenia as well as general damage to the prefrontal cortex. The Stop-Signal Task (SST) is a reliable and established measure of response inhibition. However, using the SST as an objective assessment in diagnostic or research focused settings places significant stress on participants as the task itself requires concentration and cognitive effort and is not particularly engaging. This can lead to decreased motivation to follow task instructions and poor data quality, which can affect assessment efficacy and might increase drop-out rates. Gamification—the application of game-based elements in non-game settings—has been shown to improve engaged attention to a cognitive task, which can improve participant motivation and data quality. OBJECTIVE Design a gamified SST that improves participants’ engagement and validate this gamified SST against a standard SST task. METHODS We describe the design of our gamified SST task and report on two separate studies that aim to validate it relative to a standard SST task. In study 1, a within-subject design was used to compare performance between the SST and Stop-Signal Game (SSG). In study 2, we added eye-tracking to the procedure to determine if overt attention was affected and aimed to replicate the findings from study 1 in a between-subjects design. Furthermore, in both studies, flow and motivational experiences were measured. RESULTS Study 1 showed that response inhibition was comparable between the tasks as evidenced by frequentist (p = .86) and Bayesian (BF01 = 4.60) analysis. But the subjective experience was rated higher for the SSG as compared to the SST. Specifically results showed higher interest-enjoyment (p < .01, BF10 = 168.11) and higher flow (p < .05, BF10 = 4.92) experience. Study 2 produces similar results. While the behavioral performance was comparable between tasks (p < .87, BF01 = 2.87), the experience of flow and intrinsic motivation were rated higher in the SSG group although this difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS Overall, our findings provide evidence that gamification of the SST is possible and that the SSG is enjoyed more. Thus, when participant engagement is critical, we recommend using the SSG instead of the SST. CLINICALTRIAL

show abstract

“…Thereby, the aim of a basketball player is to deceive the opponent about the throwing direction, so that the pass to a team member can be completed successfully. Several studies showed that participants react slower and more error-prone to the direction of a pass with a head fake compared to a pass without a head fake, signifying the so-called head-fake effect [4][5][6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast to our earlier studies [e.g., 4 , 6 ], we now refer to head orientation instead of gaze direction as task-irrelevant, interfering stimulus feature. The head-fake effect in basketball has proven to be very robust and can even be observed after extensive practice [ 5 ], and in high-level basketball experts [ 8 ]. 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 ].…”

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

Is the head-fake effect in basketball robust against practice? Analyses of trial-by-trial adaptations, frequency distributions, and mixture effects to evaluate effects of practice

Cited by 18 publications

References 31 publications

Effective Gamification of the Stop-Signal Task: Two Controlled Laboratory Experiments

Effective Gamification of the Stop-Signal Task: Two Controlled Laboratory Experiments

Effective Gamification of the Stop-Signal Task: Two Controlled Laboratory Experiments (Preprint)

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About