Effects of anxiety on decision making and visual search behaviour in complex sport situations

Introduction Current empirical findings indicate that the efficiency of decision making (both for experts and near-experts) in simple situations is reduced under increased stress (Wilson, 2008). Explaining the phenomenon, the Attentional Control Theory (ACT, Eysenck et al., 2007) postulates an impairment of attentional processes resulting in a less efficient processing of visual information. From a practitioner’s perspective, it would be highly relevant to know whether this phenomenon can also be found in complex sport situations like in the game of football. Consequently, in the present study, decision making of football players was examined under regular vs. increased anxiety conditions. Methods 22 participants (11 experts and 11 near-experts) viewed 24 complex football situations (counterbalanced) in two anxiety conditions from the perspective of the last defender. They had to decide as fast and accurate as possible on the next action of the player in possession (options: shot on goal, dribble or pass to a designated team member) for equal numbers of trials in a near and far distance condition (based on the position of the player in possession). Anxiety was manipulated via a competitive environment, false feedback as well as ego threats. Decision time and accuracy, gaze behaviour (e.g., fixation duration on different locations) as well as state anxiety and mental effort were used as dependent variables and analysed with 2 (expertise) x 2 (distance) x 2 (anxiety) ANOVAs with repeated measures on the last two factors. Besides expertise differences, it was hypothesised that, based on ACT, increased anxiety reduces performance efficiency and impairs gaze behaviour. Results and Discussion Anxiety was manipulated successfully, indicated by higher ratings of state anxiety, F(1, 20) = 13.13, p < .01, ηp2 = .40. Besides expertise differences in decision making – experts responded faster, F(1, 20) = 11.32, p < .01, ηp2 = .36, and more accurate, F(1,20) = 23.93, p < .01, ηp2 = .55, than near-experts – decision time, F(1, 20) = 9.29, p < .01, ηp2 = .32, and mental effort, F(1, 20) = 7.33, p = .01, ηp2 = .27, increased for both groups in the high anxiety condition. This result confirms the ACT assumption that processing efficiency is reduced when being anxious. Replicating earlier findings, a significant expertise by distance interaction could be observed, F(1, 18) = 18.53, p < .01, ηp2 = .51), with experts fixating longer on the player in possession or the ball in the near distance and longer on other opponents, teammates and free space in the far distance condition. This shows that experts are able to adjust their gaze behaviour to affordances of displayed playing patterns. Additionally, a three way interaction was found, F(1, 18) = 7.37 p = .01, ηp2 = .29, revealing that experts utilised a reduced number of fixations in the far distance condition when being anxious indicating a reduced ability to pick up visual information. Since especially the visual search behaviour of experts was impaired, the ACT prediction that particularly top-down processes are affected by anxiety could be confirmed. Taken together, the results show that sports performance is negatively influenced by anxiety since longer response times, higher mental effort and inefficient visual search behaviour were observed. From a practitioner’s perspective, this finding might suggest preferring (implicit) perceptual cognitive training; however, this recommendation needs to be empirically supported in intervention studies. References: Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336-353. Wilson, M. (2008). From processing efficiency to attentional control: A mechanistic account of the anxiety-performance relationship. Int. Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 184-201.

Reduced foveal vision enhances peripheral monitoring and peripheral event detection

Introduction: Although it seems plausible that sports performance relies on high-acuity foveal vision, it could be empirically shown that myoptic blur (up to +2 diopters) does not harm performance in sport tasks that require foveal information pick-up like golf putting (Bulson, Ciuffreda, & Hung, 2008). How myoptic blur affects peripheral performance is yet unknown. Attention might be less needed for processing visual cues foveally and lead to better performance because peripheral cues are better processed as a function of reduced foveal vision, which will be tested in the current experiment. Methods: 18 sport science students with self-reported myopia volunteered as participants, all of them regularly wearing contact lenses. Exclusion criteria comprised visual correction other than myopic, correction of astigmatism and use of contact lenses out of Swiss delivery area. For each of the participants, three pairs of additional contact lenses (besides their regular lenses; used in the “plano” condition) were manufactured with an individual overcorrection to a retinal defocus of +1 to +3 diopters (referred to as “+1.00 D”, “+2.00 D”, and “+3.00 D” condition, respectively). Gaze data were acquired while participants had to perform a multiple object tracking (MOT) task that required to track 4 out of 10 moving stimuli. In addition, in 66.7 % of all trials, one of the 4 targets suddenly stopped during the motion phase for a period of 0.5 s. Stimuli moved in front of a picture of a sports hall to allow for foveal processing. Due to the directional hypotheses, the level of significance for one-tailed tests on differences was set at α = .05 and posteriori effect sizes were computed as partial eta squares (ηρ2). Results: Due to problems with the gaze-data collection, 3 participants had to be excluded from further analyses. The expectation of a centroid strategy was confirmed because gaze was closer to the centroid than the target (all p < .01). In comparison to the plano baseline, participants more often recalled all 4 targets under defocus conditions, F(1,14) = 26.13, p < .01, ηρ2 = .65. The three defocus conditions differed significantly, F(2,28) = 2.56, p = .05, ηρ2 = .16, with a higher accuracy as a function of a defocus increase and significant contrasts between conditions +1.00 D and +2.00 D (p = .03) and +1.00 D and +3.00 D (p = .03). For stop trials, significant differences could neither be found between plano baseline and defocus conditions, F(1,14) = .19, p = .67, ηρ2 = .01, nor between the three defocus conditions, F(2,28) = 1.09, p = .18, ηρ2 = .07. Participants reacted faster in “4 correct+button” trials under defocus than under plano-baseline conditions, F(1,14) = 10.77, p < .01, ηρ2 = .44. The defocus conditions differed significantly, F(2,28) = 6.16, p < .01, ηρ2 = .31, with shorter response times as a function of a defocus increase and significant contrasts between +1.00 D and +2.00 D (p = .01) and +1.00 D and +3.00 D (p < .01). Discussion: The results show that gaze behaviour in MOT is not affected to a relevant degree by a visual overcorrection up to +3 diopters. Hence, it can be taken for granted that peripheral event detection was investigated in the present study. This overcorrection, however, does not harm the capability to peripherally track objects. Moreover, if an event has to be detected peripherally, neither response accuracy nor response time is negatively affected. Findings could claim considerable relevance for all sport situations in which peripheral vision is required which now needs applied studies on this topic. References: Bulson, R. C., Ciuffreda, K. J., & Hung, G. K. (2008). The effect of retinal defocus on golf putting. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 28, 334-344.

Linking physiology with behaviour: Functional specialisation of the visual field is reflected in gaze patterns during visual search

Based on neurophysiological findings and a grid to score binocular visual field function, two hypotheses concerning the spatial distribution of fixations during visual search were tested and confirmed in healthy participants and patients with homonymous visual field defects. Both groups showed significant biases of fixations and viewing time towards the centre of the screen and the upper screen half. Patients displayed a third bias towards the side of their field defect, which represents oculomotor compensation. Moreover, significant correlations between the extent of these three biases and search performance were found. Our findings suggest a new, more dynamic view of how functional specialisation of the visual field influences behaviour.