Skip to main content

Capturing and testing perceptual-cognitive expertise: A comparison of stationary and movement response methods

Abstract

Numerous methods have been used to study expertise and performance. In the present article, we compare the cognitive thought processes of skilled soccer players when responding to film-based simulations of defensive situations involving two different experimental conditions. Participants either remained stationary in a seated position (n = 10) or were allowed to move (n = 10) in response to life-size film sequences of 11 versus 11 open-play soccer situations viewed from a player’s perspective. Response accuracy and retrospective verbal reports of thinking were collected across the two task conditions. In the movement-based response group, participants generated a greater number of verbal report statements, including a higher proportion of evaluation, prediction, and action planning statements, than did participants in the stationary group. Findings suggest that the processing strategies employed during performance differ depending on the nature of the response required of participants. Implications for behavioral methods and experimental design are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Abernethy, B., Thomas, K. T., & Thomas, J. T. (1993). Strategies for improving understanding of motor expertise (or mistakes we have made and things we have learned!). In J. L. Starkes & F. Allard (Eds.), Cognitive issues in motor expertise (pp. 317–356). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Bianchi-Berthouze, N. (2013). Understanding the role of body movement in player engagement. Human Computer Interaction, 28, 40–75.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dhami, M. K., Hertwig, R., & Hoffrage, U. (2004). The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 959–988.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dicks, M., Button, C., & Davids, K. (2010). Examination of gaze behaviors under in situ and video simulation task constraints reveals differences in information pickup for perception and action. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 706–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dicks, M., Davids, K., & Button, C. (2009). Representative task designs for the study of perception and action in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40, 506–524.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ericsson, K. A., & Kirk, E. (2001). Instructions for giving retrospective verbal reports. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Revth ed.). Cambridge, MA: Bradford books/MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ericsson, K. A., & Williams, A. M. (2007). Capturing naturally occurring superior performance in the laboratory: Translational research on expert performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 13, 115–123.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S–R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483–492.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hays, R. T., & Singer, M. J. (1989). Simulation fidelity in training system design: Bridging the gap between reality and training. New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility - A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kushniruk, A. W., & Patel, V. L. (1998). Cognitive evaluation of decision making processes and assessment of information technology in medicine. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 51, 83–90.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McRobert, A. P., Williams, A. M., Ward, P., & Eccles, D. W. (2009). Tracing the process of expertise in a simulated anticipation task. Ergonomics, 52, 474–483.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Palmisano, S., & Gillam, B. J. (2005). Visual perception for touchdown during simulated landing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 11, 19–32.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.). (1990). Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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, 301–310.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Thomas, J. R., Nelson, J. K., & Silverman, S. J. (2005). Research methods in physical activity (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ward, P., Williams, A. M., & Ericsson, K. A. (2003). Underlying mechanisms of perceptual-cognitive expertise in soccer. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, S136.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ward, P., Williams, A. M., & Hancock, P. A. (2006). Simulation for performance and training. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 243–262). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Williams, A. M., Ericsson, K. A., Ward, P., & Eccles, D. W. (2008). Research on expertise in sport: Implications for the military. Military Psychology, 20, S123–S145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Williams, A. M., Ford, P. R., Eccles, D. W., & Ward, P. (2011). Perceptual-cognitive expertise in sport and its acquisition: Implications for applied cognitive psychology. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 432–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zijlstra, F. R. H. (1993). Efficiency in work behavior: A design approach for modern tools. Delft, Netherlands: Delft University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to André Roca.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roca, A., Williams, A.M. & Ford, P.R. Capturing and testing perceptual-cognitive expertise: A comparison of stationary and movement response methods. Behav Res 46, 173–177 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0359-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Expert performance
  • Representative task design
  • Simulation fidelity
  • Cognitive processes