Perceptual training methods compared: The relative efficacy of different approaches to enhancing sport-specific anticipation.

Abstract

The comparative efficacy of different perceptual training approaches for the improvement of anticipation was examined using a goalkeeping task from European handball that required the rapid prediction of shot direction. Novice participants (N = 60) were assigned equally to four different training groups and two different control groups (a placebo group and a group who undertook no training). The training groups received either (i) explicit rules to guide anticipation; (ii) direction as to the location of the key anticipatory cues provided either just verbally (verbal cueing) or supplemented with color highlighting (color cueing); or (iii) undertook a matching judgment task to encourage implicit learning. Performance of the groups was compared on an anticipation test administered before training, after the training intervention, under a condition involving evaluative stress, and after a 5-month retention period. The explicit learning, verbal cueing, and implicit learning conditions provided the greatest sustained improvements in performance whereas the group given color cueing performed no better than the control groups. Only the implicit learning group showed performance superior to the control groups under the stress situation. The verbal cueing, color cueing, and implicit learning groups formulated the lowest number of explicit rules related to the critical shoulder cue although the reported use of general cues and rules based on all cues did not differ between any of the groups. Anticipation can be improved through a variety of different perceptual training approaches with the relative efficacy of the different approaches being contingent upon both the time scale and conditions under which learning is assessed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 106 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.