Expertise and Deceptive Movements in Sport.
Action
Anticipation
Deception
Expertise
Perception
Journal
Sports medicine - open
ISSN: 2199-1170
Titre abrégé: Sports Med Open
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101662568
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Jun 2024
11 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
22
01
2023
accepted:
17
05
2024
medline:
11
6
2024
pubmed:
11
6
2024
entrez:
11
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Deceptive movements occur when an actor seeks to fake, hide or delay kinematic information about their true movement outcomes. The purpose of deceptive movements is to impair the perception of opponents (the 'observer') to gain an advantage over them. We argue though that a lack of conceptual clarity has led to confusion about what deception is and in understanding the different approaches by which an actor can deceive their opponent. The aim of this article is to outline a conceptual framework for understanding deceptive movements in sport. Adopting Interpersonal Deception Theory from the field of communication, we define deception as when an actor deliberately alters their actions in an attempt to impair the ability of an observer to anticipate their true action outcomes. Further, deception can be achieved either by what we define as deceit, the act of providing false information, or disguise, the act of concealing the action outcome. Skilled athletes often have actions that are difficult to anticipate, but an action is only classified as containing deception if the actor has explicit intent to deceive an observer. Having outlined the conceptual framework, we then review existing empirical findings on the skilled perception of deceptive movements considering the framework. This approach includes a critical evaluation of the mechanisms known to facilitate the perceptual ability to prevent being deceived, including a consideration of visual search strategies, confidence, the contribution of visual and motor experiences, and the influence of response biases and action capabilities on perceptual performance. The distinction between deceit and disguise particularly helps to show that most research has examined deceit, with little known about how an actor can more effectively disguise their action, or about how an observer can improve their ability to anticipate the outcome of disguised actions. The insights help to identify fruitful areas for future research and outline implications for skill acquisition and performance enhancement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Deceptive movements occur when an actor seeks to fake, hide or delay kinematic information about their true movement outcomes. The purpose of deceptive movements is to impair the perception of opponents (the 'observer') to gain an advantage over them. We argue though that a lack of conceptual clarity has led to confusion about what deception is and in understanding the different approaches by which an actor can deceive their opponent. The aim of this article is to outline a conceptual framework for understanding deceptive movements in sport.
MAIN BODY
METHODS
Adopting Interpersonal Deception Theory from the field of communication, we define deception as when an actor deliberately alters their actions in an attempt to impair the ability of an observer to anticipate their true action outcomes. Further, deception can be achieved either by what we define as deceit, the act of providing false information, or disguise, the act of concealing the action outcome. Skilled athletes often have actions that are difficult to anticipate, but an action is only classified as containing deception if the actor has explicit intent to deceive an observer. Having outlined the conceptual framework, we then review existing empirical findings on the skilled perception of deceptive movements considering the framework. This approach includes a critical evaluation of the mechanisms known to facilitate the perceptual ability to prevent being deceived, including a consideration of visual search strategies, confidence, the contribution of visual and motor experiences, and the influence of response biases and action capabilities on perceptual performance.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The distinction between deceit and disguise particularly helps to show that most research has examined deceit, with little known about how an actor can more effectively disguise their action, or about how an observer can improve their ability to anticipate the outcome of disguised actions. The insights help to identify fruitful areas for future research and outline implications for skill acquisition and performance enhancement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38861037
doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00730-8
pii: 10.1186/s40798-024-00730-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
73Subventions
Organisme : National Research Foundation (RSA)
ID : National Research Foundation (RSA)
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Panten J, Loffing F, Baker J, Schorer J. Extending research on deception in sport – combining perception and kinematic approaches. Front Psychol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02650 .
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02650
pubmed: 31849767
pmcid: 6892972
Ramsey H, Dicks M, Hope L, Reddy V. Maximising grip on deception and disguise: Expert sports performance during competitive interactions. Sports Med Open. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-022-00441-y .
doi: 10.1186/s40798-022-00441-y
pubmed: 35394567
pmcid: 8993973
Jackson RC, Warren S, Abernethy B. Anticipation skill and susceptibility to deceptive movement. Acta Psychol. 2006;123:355–74.
doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.02.002
Blake R, Shiffrar M. Perception of human motion. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:47–73.
pubmed: 16903802
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190152
Jackson RC, Cañal-Bruland R. Deception in sport. In: Williams AM, Jackson RC, editors. Anticipation and decision making in sport. Routledge; 2019. pp. 99–116.
Farrow D, Chivers P, Hardingham C, Sachse S. The effect of video-based perceptual training on the tennis return of serve. Int J Sport Psychol. 1998;23(3):231–42.
Ryu D, Abernethy B, Park SH, Mann DL. The perception of deceptive information can be enhanced by training that removes superficial visual information. Front Psychol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01132 .
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01132
pubmed: 30356842
pmcid: 6190731
Runeson S, Frykholm G. Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: expectations, gender, recognition, and deceptive intention. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1983;112(4):585–615.
doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.112.4.585
Johansson G. Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Percept Psychophys. 1973;14:195–204.
doi: 10.3758/BF03212378
Güldenpenning I, Kunde W, Weigelt M. How to trick your opponent: a review article on deceptive actions in interactive sports. Front Psychol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00917 .
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00917
pubmed: 28620336
pmcid: 5449506
Rowe R, Horswill MS, Kronvall-Parkinson M, Poulter DR, McKenna FP. The effects of disguise on novice and expert tennis players’ anticipation ability. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2009;21:178–85.
doi: 10.1080/10413200902785811
Brault S, Bideau B, Craig C, Kulpa R. Balancing deceit and disguise: how to successfully fool the defender in a 1 vs. 1 situation in rugby. Hum Mov Sci. 2010;29:412–25.
pubmed: 20417980
doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2009.12.004
Tay CS, Chow JY, Koh M, Button C. The effectiveness of keeper-independent penalty kicks using fake visual cues from penalty takers. Int J Sport Psychol. 2010;41:1–17.
Causer J, Williams AM. The use of patterns to disguise environmental cues during an anticipatory judgment task. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2015;37:74–82.
pubmed: 25730893
doi: 10.1123/jsep.2014-0200
Wood G, Vine SJ, Parr J, Wilson MR. Aiming to deceive: examining the role of the quiet eye during deceptive aiming actions. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2017;39:327–38.
pubmed: 29185367
doi: 10.1123/jsep.2017-0016
Buller DB, Burgoon JK. Interpersonal deception theory. Commun Theory. 1996;6(3):203–42.
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x
Sebanz N, Shiffrar M. Detecting deception in a bluffing body: the role of expertise. Psychon Bull Rev. 2009;16(1):170–5.
pubmed: 19145029
doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.1.170
Cañal-Bruland R, van der Kamp J, van Kesteren J. An examination of motor and perceptual contributions to the recognition of deception from other’s action. Hum Mov Sci. 2010;29:94–102.
pubmed: 19892422
doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2009.10.001
Kunde W, Skirde S, Weigelt M. Trust my face: cognitive factors of head fakes in sports. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2011;17(2):110–27.
pubmed: 21604910
doi: 10.1037/a0023756
Mann DL, van der Kamp J, Stolk JCP, Pouwelse VS, Savelsbergh GJP. Disguised by the eyes: Gaze direction as a deceptive cue in sport. Poster presented at: North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity Annual Conference; June 12–14, 2014; Minneapolis, MN.
Pizzera A, Raab M. Does motor or visual experience enhance the detection of deceptive movement in football? Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2012;7(2):269–83.
doi: 10.1260/1747-9541.7.2.269
Renden PG, Kerstens S, Oudejans RRD, Cañal-Bruland R. Foul or dive? Motor contributions to judging ambiguous foul situations in football. Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14(1):221–7.
van Biemen T, Koedijker J, Renden PG, Mann DL. The effect of blurred perceptual training on the decision making of skilled football referees. Front Psychol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01803 .
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01803
pubmed: 30319501
pmcid: 6170623
Güldenpenning I, Steinke A, Koester D, Schack T. Athletes and novices are differently capable to recognize feint and non-feint actions. Exp Brain Res. 2013;230:333–43.
pubmed: 23955103
doi: 10.1007/s00221-013-3658-2
Dicks M, Davids K, Button C. Individual differences in the visual control of intercepting a penalty kick in association football. Hum Mov Sci. 2010;29:401–11.
pubmed: 20359763
doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2010.02.008
Raffan R, Mann DL, Savelsbergh GJ. Skilled deceivers are better action perceivers and vice versa. Hum Mov Sci. 2023;89:102975.
doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2023.103073
Abernethy B, Gill DP, Parks SL, Packer ST. Expertise and the perception of kinematic and situational probability information. Percept. 2001;30:233–52.
doi: 10.1068/p2872
Koedijker JM, Mann DL. Consciousness and choking in visually-guided actions. Phenomenol Cogn Sci. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-014-9398-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s11097-014-9398-3
Sampras P, Bodo P. A champion’s mind. Lessons from a life in tennis. Crown; 2008.
Mori S, Shimada T. Expert anticipation from deceptive action. J Atten Percept Psychophys. 2013;75:751–70.
doi: 10.3758/s13414-013-0435-z
Brault S, Bideau B, Kulpa R, Craig C. Detecting deception in movement: the case of the side-step in rugby. PLoS ONE. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1371/journalpone.0037494 .
doi: 10.1371/journalpone.0037494
pubmed: 22701569
pmcid: 3372470
Cañal-Bruland R, Schmidt M. Response bias in judging deceptive movements. Acta Psychol. 2009;130:235–40.
doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.12.009
Smeeton NJ, Williams AM. The role of movement exaggeration in the anticipation of deceptive soccer penalty kicks. Br J Psychol. 2012;103:539–55.
pubmed: 23034111
doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02092.x
Meyer J, Fasold F, Schul K, Schön T, Klatt S. Shot deception in basketball: gaze and anticipation strategy in defence. Hum Mov Sci. 2022;84:102975.
pubmed: 35820258
doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2022.102975
Weigelt M, Güldenpenning I, Steggemann-Weinrich Y, Alhaj Ahmad Alaboud M, Kunde W. Head fakes in sports: control over the processing of the opponent’s gaze direction in basketball experts. Psychon Bull Rev. 2017;24:828–34.
pubmed: 27542803
doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1140-4
Meyer J, Fasold F, Schul K, Schön T, Klatt S. Shot fakes as an indicator of successful offense in basketball. Hum Mov Sci. 2022;82:102920.
pubmed: 34998230
doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2021.102920
Fasold F, Meyer J, Klatt S. Effects of throwing feints on attack strategy in elite handball: a post-hoc video analysis. Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2023.2188362 .
doi: 10.1080/24748668.2023.2188362
Janssen T, Müller D, Mann DL. From natural towards representative decision making in sports: a framework for decision making in virtual and augmented environments. Sports Med. 2023;53:1851–64.
pubmed: 37656407
pmcid: 10504147
doi: 10.1007/s40279-023-01884-3
Meyer J, Fasold F, Schul K, Sonnenschein M, Klatt S. The defender’s vision-gaze behaviour of one-on-one defenders in basketball. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2022;44(2):127–37.
pubmed: 35245894
doi: 10.1123/jsep.2021-0149
Jackson RC, Mogan P. Advance visual information, awareness, and anticipation skill. J Mot Behav. 2007;39(5):341–51.
pubmed: 17827112
doi: 10.3200/JMBR.39.5.341-352
Mann DL, Abernethy B, Farrow D. Action specificity increases anticipatory performance and the expert advantage in natural interceptive tasks. Acta Psychol. 2010;135(1):17–23.
doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.006
Rosenthal DM. Consciousness, content, and metacognitive judgments. Conscious Cogn. 2000;9:203–14.
pubmed: 10924239
doi: 10.1006/ccog.2000.0437
Runeson S, Juslin P, Olsson H. Visual perception of dynamic properties: cue heuristic versus direct-perception competence. Psychol Rev. 2000;107:525–55.
pubmed: 10941279
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.107.3.525
Smeeton NJ, Meyer J, Klatt S. Perceiving the inertial properties of actions in anticipation skill. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2023;64:102276.
pubmed: 37665797
doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102276
Prinz W. Perception and action planning. Eur J Cogn Psychol. 1997;9(2):129–54.
doi: 10.1080/713752551
Mulligan D, Lohse KR, Hodges NJ. Evidence for dual mechanisms of action prediction dependent on acquired visual-motor experiences. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000241 .
doi: 10.1037/xhp0000241
pubmed: 27280709
Wright MJ, Bishop DT, Jackson RC, Abernethy B. Brain regions concerned with the identification of deceptive soccer moves by higher-skilled and lower-skilled players. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;7:1–15.
Calvo-Merino B, Glaser DE, Grèzes J, Passingham RE, Haggard P. Action observation and acquired motor skills: an fMRI study with expert dancers. Cereb Cortex. 2005;15:1243–9.
pubmed: 15616133
doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhi007
Aglioti SM, Cesari P, Romani M, Urgesi C. Action anticipation and motor resonance in elite basketball players. Nat Neurosci. 2008;11(9):1109–16.
pubmed: 19160510
doi: 10.1038/nn.2182
Renshaw I, Headrick JJ, Davids K. Affective learning design: Building emotions into representative learning design. Poster presented at: International Conference on Complex Systems and Applications; June 23–26, 2014; Le Havre, France.
Cañal-Bruland R, Mann DL. Time to broaden the scope of research on anticipatory behaviour: a case for the role of probabilistic information. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1–3.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01518
Jackson RC, Barton H, Ashford KJ, Abernethy B. Stepovers and signal detection: response sensitivity and bias in the differentiation of genuine and deceptive football actions. Front Psychol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02043 .
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02043
pubmed: 30420821
pmcid: 6215843
Helm F, Cañal-Bruland R, Mann DL, Troje NF, Munzert J. Integrating situational probability and kinematic information when anticipating disguised movements. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2020;46:1–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101607
Cañal-Bruland R, Filius MA, Oudejans RRD. Sitting on a fastball. J Mot Behav. 2015;47(4):267–70.
pubmed: 25425271
doi: 10.1080/00222895.2014.976167
Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company; 1979.
Dicks M, Button C, Davids K. Availability of advance visual information constrains association-football goalkeeping performance during penalty kicks. Percept. 2010;39(8):1111–24.
doi: 10.1068/p6442
Alsharji KE, Wade MG. Perceptual training effects on anticipation of direct and deceptive 7-m throws in handball. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(2):155–62.
pubmed: 25917061
doi: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1039463
Güldenpenning I, Kunde W, Weigelt M. Head-fake perception in basketball: the relative contributions of expertise, visual or motor training, and test repetition. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2020.1854819 .
doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2020.1854819