Advertisement

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

  • Iris Güldenpenning
  • Christoph Schütz
  • Matthias Weigelt
  • Wilfried Kunde
Original Article

Abstract

Reactions to the pass of a basketball player performing a head fake are typically slower than reactions to a basketball player who passes without a head fake (i.e., head-fake effect). The present study shows that extensive practice reduces the head-fake effect in basketball. Additional analyses were conducted to explore the mechanism behind the reduced head-fake effect. First, we analyzed whether or not participants developed some control over the processing of irrelevant gaze direction, as indicated by specific trial-to-trial adaptations (i.e., congruency sequence effect). Second, we fitted the individual frequency distributions of RTs to ex-Gaussian distributions, to evaluate if practice specifically affects the Gaussian part of the distribution or the exponential part of the distribution. Third, we modeled individual RT distributions as the so-called mixture effects to examine whether the way irrelevant gaze direction impacts performance (either occasionally but massively or continuously but moderately) changes with practice. The analyses revealed that the effect of practice could not be explained with an increasing congruency-sequence effect. Also, it could not be found in the ex-Gaussian distributional analyses. The assumption that residual failure to inhibit the processing of the gaze direction in contrast to continuous failures to do so might favor mixed effects over uniform effects at later courses of practice could not be validated. The reduced head-fake effect thus is argued to source in participants’ general increasing ability to inhibit the processing of the task-irrelevant gaze direction information and/or in a priority shift of gaze processing to a processing of the pass direction.

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under Grant (GU 1683/1–1, KU 1964/ 13–1).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was conducted in accordance with the German Psychological Society (DGPs) ethical guidelines (2004, CIII). This research was also reviewed and approved by the German Research Council [DFG, project number (GU 1683/1–1)], which did not require Institutional Review Board approval. All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Written informed consents (which were signed by the participants) informed the participants that their data will be anonymously (i.e., without access to their names) saved, analyzed, and published.

References

  1. Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3(2), 111–149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alhaj Ahmad Alaboud, M., Güldenpenning, I., Steggemann-Weinrich, Y., Kunde, W., & Weigelt, M. (2016). Täuschungshandlungen im Sport: Der Blicktäuschungseffekt im Basketball unter quasirealistischen Bedingungen. Sportwissenschaft, 46(3), 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alhaj Ahmad Alaboud, M., Steggemann, Y., Klein-Soetebier, T., Kunde, W., & Weigelt, M. (2012). Täuschungshandlungen im Sport: Eine experimentelle Untersuchung zur Wirkung der Häufigkeitsverteilung auf die Blicktäuschung im Basketball. Zeitschrift für Sportpsychologie, 19(3), 110–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Appelbaum, L. G., & Erickson, G. (2016). Sports vision training: A review of the state-of-the-art in digital training techniques. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2016.1266376.Google Scholar
  5. Balota, D. A., & Yap, M. J. (2011). Moving beyond the mean in studies of mental chronometry: The power of response time distributional analyses. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 160–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Compton, B. J., & Logan, G. D. (1991). The transition from algorithm to retrieval in memory-based theories of automaticity. Memory & Cognition, 19(2), 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davidson, D. J., Zacks, R. T., & Williams, C. C. (2003). Stroop interference, practice, and aging. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 10(2), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dulaney, C. L., & Rogers, W. A. (1994). Mechanisms underlying reduction in Stroop interference with practice for young and old adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(2), 470.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellis, N. R., Woodley-Zanthos, P., Dulaney, C. L., & Palmer, R. L. (1989). Automatic effortful processing and cognitive inertia in persons with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 93, 412–423.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Güldenpenning, I., Alhaj Ahmad Alaboud, M., Kunde, W., & Weigelt, M. (2018). The impact of global and local context information on the processing of deceptive actions in game sports: Both higher head-fake frequencies and head-fake repetitions reduce the size of the head-fake effect in basketball. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-018-0493-4.Google Scholar
  12. Güldenpenning, I., Kunde, W., & Weigelt, M. (2017). How to trick your opponent: A review article on deceptive actions in interactive sports. Frontiers in Psychology. 8, 917CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Heathcote, A., Popiel, S. J., & Mewhort, D. J. (1991). Analysis of response time distributions: An example using the Stroop task. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kunde, W., Skirde, S., & Weigelt, M. (2011). Trust my face: Cognitive factors of head fakes in sports. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(2), 110–127.  https://doi.org/10.1037/A0023756.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lacouture, Y., & Cousineau, D. (2008). How to use MATLAB to fit the ex-Gaussian and other probability functions to a distribution of response times. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(1), 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Langton, S. R. H., Watt, R. J., & Bruce, V. (2000). Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(2), 50–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163–203.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. MacLeod, C. M. (1998). Training on integrated versus separated Stroop tasks: The progression of interference and facilitation. Memory & Cognition, 26(2), 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller, J. (2006). A likelihood ratio test for mixture effects. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 92–106.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192754.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Osman, A., Lou, L., Muller-Gethmann, H., Rinkenauer, G., Mattes, S., & Ulrich, R. (2000). Mechanisms of speed–accuracy tradeoff: Evidence from covert motor processes. Biological Psychology, 51(2), 173–199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 74–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reynolds, A., & Miller, J. (2009). Display size effects in visual search: Analyses of reaction time distributions as mixtures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(5), 988–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Spieler, D. H., Balota, D. A., & Faust, M. E. (1996). Stroop performance in healthy younger and older adults and in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(2), 461.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Strobach, T., Salminen, T., Karbach, J., & Schubert, T. (2014). Practice-related optimization and transfer of executive functions: A general review and a specific realization of their mechanisms in dual tasks. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 78(6), 836–851.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weigelt, M., Güldenpenning, I., Steggemann-Weinrich, Y., Alhaj Ahmad Alaboud, M., & Kunde, W. (2017). Control over the processing of the opponent’s gaze direction in basketball experts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(3), 828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Whelan, R. (2008). Effective analysis of reaction time data. Psychological Record, 58(3), 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilkinson, A. J., & Yang, L. (2012). Plasticity of inhibition in older adults: Retest practice and transfer effects. Psychology and Aging, 27(3), 606.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sports and HealthPaderborn UniversityPaderbornGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Psychology and Sports ScienceBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyWürzburg UniversityWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations