Decoding deception: The impact of expertise and prior information on sports anticipation through computational modelling

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q2 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM

Psychology of Sport and Exercise Pub Date : 2025-02-02 DOI:10.1016/j.psychsport.2025.102819

Hao He , Junyu Wang , Pengfei Ren , Haofei Miao , Lizhong Chi

{"title":"Decoding deception: The impact of expertise and prior information on sports anticipation through computational modelling","authors":"Hao He , Junyu Wang , Pengfei Ren , Haofei Miao , Lizhong Chi","doi":"10.1016/j.psychsport.2025.102819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This study investigates cognitive processes in sports anticipation, specifically the influence of deceptive versus genuine actions on evidence accumulation and the roles of athletic expertise and prior information.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Two experiments with 61 participants assessed anticipation in soccer, comparing genuine and deceptive dribbling actions. Study 1 lacked prior information; study 2 incorporated it. The Hierarchical Drift Diffusion Model (HDDM) analyzed reaction times and decision accuracy, focusing on differences in DDM parameters.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Deceptive actions significantly affected decision thresholds (<em>a</em>), non-decision time (<em>t</em>), starting point (<em>z</em>), and drift rate (<em>v</em>), leading to longer reaction time (RT) and lower accuracy. While no overall accuracy or reaction time differences were observed between experts and novices, experts exhibited longer non-decision times, suggesting deeper perceptual processing. Prior information improved accuracy for genuine actions but reduced it for deceptive ones, by changing starting points.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The study highlights profound differences in cognitive processing between deceptive and genuine actions, emphasizing non-decision time as a key differentiator between experts and novices. Prior information selectively enhances decision accuracy, underscoring the complexity of sports anticipation and suggesting the potential for targeted performance interventions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54536,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Sport and Exercise","volume":"78 ","pages":"Article 102819"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Sport and Exercise","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1469029225000184","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

This study investigates cognitive processes in sports anticipation, specifically the influence of deceptive versus genuine actions on evidence accumulation and the roles of athletic expertise and prior information.

Methods

Two experiments with 61 participants assessed anticipation in soccer, comparing genuine and deceptive dribbling actions. Study 1 lacked prior information; study 2 incorporated it. The Hierarchical Drift Diffusion Model (HDDM) analyzed reaction times and decision accuracy, focusing on differences in DDM parameters.

Results

Deceptive actions significantly affected decision thresholds (a), non-decision time (t), starting point (z), and drift rate (v), leading to longer reaction time (RT) and lower accuracy. While no overall accuracy or reaction time differences were observed between experts and novices, experts exhibited longer non-decision times, suggesting deeper perceptual processing. Prior information improved accuracy for genuine actions but reduced it for deceptive ones, by changing starting points.

Conclusions

The study highlights profound differences in cognitive processing between deceptive and genuine actions, emphasizing non-decision time as a key differentiator between experts and novices. Prior information selectively enhances decision accuracy, underscoring the complexity of sports anticipation and suggesting the potential for targeted performance interventions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

解码欺骗：专业知识和先验信息对运动预期的影响。

目的：研究运动预期的认知过程，特别是欺骗行为和真实行为对证据积累的影响以及运动专业知识和先验信息的作用。方法：对61名被试进行两项实验，比较真实和虚假的足球运球动作。研究1缺乏先验信息；研究2纳入了它。层次漂移扩散模型（HDDM）分析了反应时间和决策精度，重点关注DDM参数的差异。结果：欺骗行为显著影响决策阈值(a)、非决策时间(t)、起始点(z)和漂移率(v)，导致反应时间（RT）延长，准确性降低。虽然在专家和新手之间没有观察到总体准确性或反应时间的差异，但专家表现出更长的非决策时间，表明更深的感知加工。通过改变起始点，先验信息提高了真实行为的准确性，但降低了欺骗性行为的准确性。结论：本研究强调了欺骗行为和真实行为之间认知加工的深刻差异，强调非决策时间是专家和新手之间的关键区别。先验信息选择性地提高了决策准确性，强调了运动预测的复杂性，并提出了有针对性的表现干预的潜力。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Psychology of Sport and Exercise 医学-心理学

CiteScore

6.40

自引率

5.90%

发文量

172

审稿时长

69 days

期刊介绍： Psychology of Sport and Exercise is an international forum for scholarly reports in the psychology of sport and exercise, broadly defined. The journal is open to the use of diverse methodological approaches. Manuscripts that will be considered for publication will present results from high quality empirical research, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, commentaries concerning already published PSE papers or topics of general interest for PSE readers, protocol papers for trials, and reports of professional practice (which will need to demonstrate academic rigour and go beyond mere description). The CONSORT guidelines consort-statement need to be followed for protocol papers for trials; authors should present a flow diagramme and attach with their cover letter the CONSORT checklist. For meta-analysis, the PRISMA prisma-statement guidelines should be followed; authors should present a flow diagramme and attach with their cover letter the PRISMA checklist. For systematic reviews it is recommended that the PRISMA guidelines are followed, although it is not compulsory. Authors interested in submitting replications of published studies need to contact the Editors-in-Chief before they start their replication. We are not interested in manuscripts that aim to test the psychometric properties of an existing scale from English to another language, unless new validation methods are used which address previously unanswered research questions.