Abstract
In batting and racket sports, players rely on kinematic and contextual cues to anticipate an opponent’s action outcome. In tennis, an opponent’s on-court position has been found to be a contextual cue signaling stroke direction. Additionally, given the varying technical–tactical repertoire associated with an opponent’s skill, the latter may further influence prediction behavior. Here, we sought to replicate position dependency in visual anticipation and to test the hypothesized interaction between an opponent’s on-court position and skill upon stroke direction anticipation in tennis. To this end, skilled tennis players predicted shot direction of point-light animated forehand groundstrokes that were executed at different on-court positions and occluded at three different time points. In block 1, no skill information was given, whereas in blocks 2 and 3 participants were told to either face opponents from the Bundesliga or Kreisliga. In line with former evidence, shot outcome predictions varied as a function of an opponent’s on-court position. Also, participants’ reliance on position information was strongest when little kinematic information was available. However, knowledge of an opponent’s purported skill was not found to reliably affect prediction behavior. By contrast, post-experiment questionnaire data suggest that players explicitly assign different shot direction probabilities depending on an opponent’s skill and position. Collectively, our research supports especially the role of on-court position for tennis stroke outcome anticipation. The conflicting findings on the potential role of knowledge of an opponent’s skill call for further empirical verification.
Zusammenfassung
In (Rück‑)Schlagsportarten verlassen Athleten sich auf kinematische und kontextbezogene Informationen zur Antizipation des gegnerischen Handlungsausgangs. Im Tennis ist die gegnerische Position auf dem Platz ein Kontextmerkmal, welches zur Vorhersage der Schlagrichtung genutzt wird. Aufgrund variierender technisch-taktischer Fertigkeiten in Abhängigkeit vom Leistungsniveau eines Gegners könnte Letzteres ebenfalls das Antizipationsverhalten beeinflussen. Ziel der vorliegenden Studie war es, Befunde zur positionsabhängigen visuellen Antizipation zu replizieren und die vermutete Interaktion zwischen gegnerischer Position und Leistungsniveau im Hinblick auf die Antizipation der Schlagrichtung im Tennis zu prüfen. Erfahrene Tennisspieler hatten die Aufgabe, die Richtung lichtpunktanimierter Vorhandgrundlinienschläge vorherzusagen, die von unterschiedlichen Positionen auf dem Platz ausgeführt wurden und zu drei verschiedenen Zeitpunkten abbrachen. In Block 1 wurden keine Informationen über das gegnerische Leistungsniveau gegeben. In den Blöcken 2 und 3 hingegen wurde den Probanden mitgeteilt, dass sie entweder gegen einen Bundesliga- oder einen Kreisligaspieler spielten. Im Einklang mit früheren Studien variierten die Schlagrichtungsvorhersagen in Abhängigkeit von der gegnerischen Platzposition, insbesondere wenn wenig kinematische Informationen verfügbar waren. Ein Einfluss des Wissens über das vermeintliche gegnerische Leistungsniveau auf das Antizipationsverhalten konnte hingegen nicht zuverlässig nachgewiesen werden. Demgegenüber legen die Ergebnisse einer postexperimentellen Befragung nahe, dass Tennisspieler abhängig vom Leistungsniveau und der Platzposition des Gegners explizit unterschiedliche Schlagrichtungswahrscheinlichkeiten erwarten. Zusammenfassend unterstreichen die Ergebnisse insbesondere die Relevanz der gegnerischen Position für die Antizipation der Schlagrichtung im Tennis. Die gegensätzlichen Befunde zum potenziellen Einfluss des Wissens über das gegnerische Leistungsniveau verlangen nach einer weiteren empirischen Überprüfung.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Similar to previous work on positional effects in tennis stroke direction anticipation (Loffing & Hagemann, 2014; Loffing et al., 2016), the main interest of this research was in participants’ response selection (operationalized via the proportion of cross-court shot prediction) not accuracy of predictions. Importantly, participants were not made aware of this circumstance at any point throughout experimental testing.
For international comparisons, the range in LK-values 1–7 corresponds, for example, to 4.2 and better (Britain system) or 5.0 and better (US system) (a detailed chart for international comparisons can be found at http://www.dtb-tennis.de/content/download/6277/66342/version/2/file/LK-Vergleichstabelle_150215.pdf).
References
Abernethy, B., Gill, D. P., Parks, S. L., & Packer, S. T. (2001). Expertise and the perception of kinematic and situational probability information. Perception, 30(2), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1068/p2872.
Brody, H. (2006). Cross-court versus down-the-line. Journal of Medicine and Science in Tennis, 11(2), 26.
Buckolz, E., Prapavesis, H., & Fairs, J. (1988). Advance cues and their use in predicting tennis passing shots. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 13(1), 20–30.
Cañal-Bruland, R., & Mann, D. L. (2015). Time to broaden the scope of research on anticipatory behaviour: A case for the role of probabilistic information. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01518.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Crognier, L., & Féry, Y. A. (2005). Effect of tactical initiative on predicting passing shots in tennis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(5), 637–649. https://doi.org/10.1002/Acp.1100.
Farrow, D., & Reid, M. (2012). The contribution of situational probability information to anticipatory skill. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 15(4), 368–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2011.12.007.
Goulet, C., Bard, C., & Fleury, M. (1989). Expertise differences in preparing to return a tennis serve: A visual information processing approach. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11(4), 382–398. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.11.4.382.
Gray, R. (2002). Behavior of college baseball players in a virtual batting task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(5), 1131–1148. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.28.5.1131.
JASP Team (2018). JASP (Version 0.9.0.1) Computer software. https://jasp-stats.org
Jones, C. M., & Miles, T. R. (1978). Use of advance cues in predicting the flight of a lawn tennis ball. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 4, 231–235.
Kolman, N. S., Kramer, T., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Huijgen, B. C. H., & Visscher, C. (2018). Technical and tactical skills related to performance levels in tennis: A systematic review. Journal of Sports Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1483699.
Loffing, F., & Cañal-Bruland, R. (2017). Anticipation in sport. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.008.
Loffing, F., & Hagemann, N. (2014). On-court position influences skilled tennis players’ anticipation of shot outcome. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 36(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2013-0082.
Loffing, F., Sölter, F., Hagemann, N., & Strauss, B. (2016). On-court position and handedness in visual anticipation of stroke direction in tennis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 27, 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.08.014.
Loffing, F., Stern, R., & Hagemann, N. (2015). Pattern-induced expectation bias in visual anticipation of action outcomes. Acta Psychologica, 161, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.08.007.
Loffing, F., Wilkes, T., & Hagemann, N. (2011). Skill level and graphical detail shape perceptual judgments in tennis. Perception, 40(12), 1447–1456. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7035.
Mann, D. L., Schaefers, T., & Cañal-Bruland, R. (2014). Action preferences and the anticipation of action outcomes. Acta Psychologica, 152, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.07.004.
Mann, D. T. Y., Williams, A. M., Ward, P., & Janelle, C. M. (2007). Perceptual-cognitive expertise in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29(4), 457–478. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.29.4.457.
McPherson, S. L., & MacMahon, C. (2008). How baseball players prepare to bat: tactical knowledge as a mediator of expert performance in baseball. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(6), 755–778. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.30.6.755.
McRobert, A. P., Ward, P., Eccles, D. W., & Williams, A. M. (2011). The effect of manipulating context-specific information on perceptual–cognitive processes during a simulated anticipation task. British Journal of Psychology, 102(3), 519–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2010.02013.x.
Müller, S., & Abernethy, B. (2012). Expert anticipatory skill in striking sports: A review and a model. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83(2), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.5641/027013612800745059.
Murphy, C. P., Jackson, R. C., Cooke, K., Roca, A., Benguigui, N., & Williams, A. M. (2016). Contextual information and perceptual-cognitive expertise in a dynamic, temporally-constrained task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(4), 455–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000094.
Neumaier, A. (1985). Zu den Chancen des Returnspielers beim Tennisaufschlag. Leistungssport, 15(6), 5–8.
Pollick, F. E., Fidopiastis, C., & Braden, V. (2001). Recognising the style of spatially exaggerated tennis serves. Perception, 30(3), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3064.
Roca, A., Ford, P. R., McRobert, A. P., & Williams, A. M. (2011). Identifying the processes underpinning anticipation and decision-making in a dynamic time-constrained task. Cognitive Processing, 12(3), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-011-0392-1.
Schläppi-Lienhard, O., & Hossner, E.-J. (2015). Decision making in beach volleyball defense: Crucial factors derived from interviews with top-level experts. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.07.005.
Vergauwen, L., Spaepen, A. J., Lefevre, J., & Hespel, P. (1998). Evaluation of stroke performance in tennis. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 30(8), 1281–1288. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199808000-00016.
Vernon, G., Farrow, D., & Reid, M. (2018). Returning serve in tennis: A qualitative examination of the interaction of anticipatory information sources used by professional tennis players. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(895) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00895.
Ward, P., Williams, A. M., & Bennett, S. J. (2002). Visual search and biological motion perception in tennis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2002.10608997.
Wolpert, D. M., & Flanagan, J. R. (2010). Motor learning. Current Biology, 20(11), R467–R472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.04.035.
Yarrow, K., Brown, P., & Krakauer, J. W. (2009). Inside the brain of an elite athlete: The neural processes that support high achievement in sports. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(8), 585–596. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2672.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
K. Huesmann and F. Loffing declare that they have no competing interests.
Tennis players participated voluntarily in this research. All participants reported normal or corrected-to-normal vision; they were naïve with regard to the study’s underlying hypotheses, provided written informed consent prior to the beginning of testing and were free to withdraw from testing at any time. Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the local Commission for Research Impact Assessment and Ethics at the University of Oldenburg (code 74-2017).
Caption Electronic Supplementary Material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huesmann, K., Loffing, F. Contextual cue utilization in visual anticipation in tennis: On the role of an opponent’s on-court position and skill. Ger J Exerc Sport Res 49, 304–312 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-019-00597-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-019-00597-y