16:30 - 18:00
Mon-A6-Talk III-
Mon-Talk III-
Room: A6
Chair/s:
Iris Güldenpenning
In different kind of sports, highly time-restricted situations require athletes to early anticipate actions of team members and opponents. Skilled athletes use different sensory modalities to predict upcoming situations. The first talk focuses on multisensory integration in anticipation. For the anticipation of sporting actions, not only sensory perceptions play a role, but also information about the context (e.g. the score, the position of a player on the field, preferences of an opponent). The second talk deals with the question of how different frequencies of head fakes performed by different basketball players affect the individual effectiveness of the head fake. The ability to inhibit an already planned action also plays an important role in sport, for example in order to avoid an injury or because an opponent has provoked an incorrect action through deception. In the third talk, a paradigmatic approach is reported to investigate response inhibition for the basketball jump shot. The fourth talk focuses on the relationship
between response inhibition and expertise. The fifth talk explores the question of how prior mental training in the learning process of a complex action affects gaze behavior and motor performance.
Response inhibition for the basketball jump shot: Using the “stop before eight” paradigm
Mon-A6-Talk III-03
Presented by: Carolin Wickemeyer
Carolin Wickemeyer, Iris Güldenpenning, Matthias Weigelt
Paderborn University
Inhibitory control of actions is an executive process, which is important to attain behavioural goals. A defending basketball player, for example, who wants to block a jump shot, needs to inhibit the defensive action if the opponent only pretends to shoot. To investigate the ability of response inhibition in such a one-on-one situation in basketball, a computer-based anticipation experiment was conducted. In three blocks of 200 trails each, participants (N = 27, 11 females and 16 males, Mage = 22,26) viewed a video of a basketball jump shot (face-to-face, front view perspective) and were instructed to release the spacebar precisely at the point, where the ball leaves the fingertips of the basketball player (go-trials). In 25% of the trials, the video stopped prematurely before ball release, and participants were asked to withhold their response (stop-trials). The delay between the stop and the point of ball release was adjusted by a staircase tracking algorithm with a fixed step size, based on participants’ performance. For go-trials, results showed a constant error of 23 ms. For stop-trials, participants could only inhibit 50% of their responses when the video stopped between 183-200 ms before the point of ball release. Furthermore, a post-stop-trial adjustment (i.e., larger constant error) both, after successful and after unsuccessful stop-trials was found. Anticipation performance benefited from practice across the three blocks. Further experiments should investigate response inhibition in basketball using more realistic response actions.
Keywords: response inhibition, basketball, deceptive actions, anticipation, motor control