The Attention Window : An overview of a new attention task and different research findings

Transcription

1 Institute of Cognitive and Team/Racket Sport Research The Attention Window : An overview of a new attention task and different research findings Dr. Stefanie Hüttermann

2 Dr. Stefanie Hüttermann - Research associate at the Institute of Cognitive and Team/Racket Sport Research (German Sport University Cologne) - Doctoral dissertation 2014 ( The Attention Window Model: An exploration of different influential factors on the size and shape of the visual focus of attention in sports ) - Research interests: visual attention, motivation, creativity 2

3 Visual attention in sports - Real-life situations require to focus attention on two locations simultaneously - Optimal alignment and flexible adjustment of the focus of attention as an essential condition for successful performances 3

4 Visual attention (nach Williams, Davids Williams & Williams, et al (1999) 1999, Visual Perception and Action in in Sport) 4

5 Attention Window Definition - Largest stimulus separation at which each subject reliably identifies two stimuli on at least 75% accuracy 5

6 Attention Window Task Hüttermann, Memmert, Simons & Bock (2013) PLoS ONE 6

7 Attention Window Task Hüttermann et al (2013) PLoS ONE 7

8 Aim of the research program Experimentally not influenceable factors Personal abilities: -Age -Gender Personal development: -Sport experience Focus of Attention Size? Shape? Performance? Experimentally influenceable factors Changes in tasks: -Gaze behavior Changes in situations: -Physical pressure -Motivation -Mood -Subliminal information processing 8

9 Answer to the 1st research question How do experimentally not influenceable factors affect the size and shape of the visual focus of attention? Experimentally not influenceable factors: - age - gender - sports experience 9

10 Maximum Attention-Window: Younger versus older people Younger people (M Age =23years±2 years) AW: 31,48 ±3,32 Older people (M Age =69years ±5 years) AW: 23,06 ±3,38 Gender: F(1,22)=3.021, p=.096 Group: F(1,22)=37.775, p<.001, η p2 =.632 Meridian: F(2,44)=3.487, p=.039, η p2 =.137 Hüttermann, Bock & Memmert (2012) Ageing Research 10

11 Maximum Attention Window: Athletes versus non-athletes Athletes AW: 37,04 ±5,36 Non-athletes AW: 29,67 ±8,26 Gender: F(1,35)=0.797, p=.378 Group: F(1,35)=10.717, p=.002, η p2 =.234 Meridian: F(2,70)=29.162, p<.001, η p2 =.455 Hüttermann, Memmert Hüttermann & Simons et al (2014) Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 11

12 Answer to the 2nd research question To what extent do experimentally influenceable factors change the size and shape of the visual focus of attention? Experimentally suggestible factors: - Changes in tasks - Gaze behavior - Changes in situations - Physical exercise - Motivation - Mood 12

13 Changes in Situation: Physical Exercise - Low Physical Exercise: 50% of the individual max. heart rate - Moderate Physical Exercise: 60% of the individual max. heart rate - High Physical Exercise: 70% of the individual max. heart rate 13

14 Low Physical Exercise Athletes: 70,07%±4,91% Non-athletes: 59,50%±6,32% Moderate Physical Exercise Athletes: 73,52%±4,59% Non-athletes: 63,26%±11,10% High Physical Exercise Athletes: 77,79%±3,33% Non-athletes: 58,90%±6,62% Changes in Situation: Physical Exercise Expertise: F(1,15)=23.009, p<.001, η p2 =.605 Physical Exercise: F(2,30)=3.643, p=.038, η p2 =.195 Interaction (Expertise x Physical exercise): F(2,30)=5.107, p=.012, η p2 =.254 Hüttermann & Memmert (2014) Physiology & Behavior 14

15 Changes in Situation: Motivational Status Regulatory Focus Theory induced promotion focus induced prevention focus Förster, Friedman, Özelsel & Denzler (2006) Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

16 Changes in Situation: Motivational Status Promotion focus 5-20 : 81,07%±2,21% >20-40 : 77,14%±3,80% Prevention focus 5-20 : 87,38%±3,90% >20-40 : 69,88%±6,76% Group: F(1,18)=0.122, p=.731 Meridian: F(2,36)=19.277, p=.001, η p2 =.517 Interaction (Focus x visual angle between two stimuli): F(1,18)=21.493, p<.001, η p2 =.544 Hüttermann & Memmert (2014) Cognition and Emotion 16

17 Changes in Situation: Mood Positive mood before: 32,50 ±13,91 after: 39,50 ±11,29 t(7)=1.428, p=.196 Negative mood before: 30,67 ±10,52 after: 19,50 ±6,53 t(7)=3.680, p=.008 Mood: F(1,14)=5.587, p=.033, η p2 =.285 Interaction (time of measurement x mood): F(1,14)=9.925, p=.007, η p2 =.415 Hüttermann & Memmert (2014) Cognition & Emotion 17

18 Answer to the 3rd research question Which effects does the direction of the attention focus have on general performances and what does this mean for sports? 18

19 Offside decision-making in soccer angle<35 : 72% correct decisions angle>35 : 42% correct decision N=111, B=0.030, SE=.011, p=.006, 95% CI= ; constant: B=-1.228, SE=.440, p=.005 Hüttermann, Noël, Simons, & Memmert (in preparation) 19

20 The Attention Window Model Experimentally not influenceable factors Personal abilities: -age -Gender Personal development: -sport experience performance Experimentally influenceable factors Changes in tasks: -gaze behavior Changes in situations: -Physical pressure -Motivation -mood -subliminal information processing 20

21 Summary of the study results - Average maximum focus size: 29 (experts/athletes: 35 ) - Size influenceable by age and expertise (but not by gender), as well as by changes in tasks and situations - Elliptical form of the focus, irrespective of influencing factors: average orientation: 32 horizontal, 29 diagonal, 27 vertical - Visual field is about five/six times as great as our maximum focus of attention 21

22 Outlook/sport-practical implications - Tasks/situations should be adapted to personal abilities and developments of the respective person/group (e.g. through agespecific programs of training contents, that correspond to the expertise-level of a group) - Consideration of the use of technical devices/personal additions (e.g. in order to improve the decision-making of referees) 22

23 Outlook Examination whether a larger Attention-Window - is the cause of a learning process - or rather training process 23

24 End. Thank you for your attention! 24

25 Publications resulting from the research program I. Hüttermann, S., Bock, O., & Memmert, D. (2012). The breadth of attention in old age. Ageing Research, 10, II. Hüttermann, S., Memmert, D., & Simons, D. J. (2014). The Size and Shape of the Attentional Spotlight" Varies With Differences in Sports Expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, III. Hüttermann, S., Memmert, D., Simons, D. J., & Bock, O. (2013). Fixation Strategy Influences the Ability to Focus Attention on Two Spatially Separate Objects. PLoS ONE, 8, e IV. Hüttermann, S., & Memmert, D. (2014). Does the inverted-u function disappear in expert athletes? An analysis of the attentional behavior under physical exercise of athletes and non-athletes. Physiology and Behavior, 131, V. Hüttermann, S., & Memmert, D. (2014). The Influence of Motivational and Mood States on Visual Attention: A Quantification of Systematic Differences and Casual Changes in Subjects Focus of Attention. Cognition and Emotion,

26 Publications resulting from the research program VI. Hüttermann, S., Memmert, D., & Bock, O. (2012). Semantic Priming of Attention Focus: Evidence for Short- and Long-Term Effects. Psychology, 3, VII. Hüttermann, S., Bock, O., & Memmert, D. (2014). Subliminal primes for global or local processing influence judgments of vehicular traffic. Consciousness and Cognition, 29, VIII. Hüttermann, S., & Memmert, D. (2012). Moderate movement, more vision: Effects IX. of physical exercise on inattentional blindness. Perception, 41, Hüttermann, S., Memmert, D., & Liesner, F. (2014). Finding a happy medium: an analysis of gaze behavior strategies in a representative task design of soccer penalties. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 26, X. Hüttermann, S., Memmert, D., Simons, D. J., & Noël, B. (in preparation). The relationship between attention breadth and error rates for offside calls in soccer. 26