Thomas Küchelmann, Konstantinos Velentzas, Kai Essig, Thomas Schack
{"title":"Expertise-dependent visuocognitive performance of chess players in mating tasks: evidence from eye movements during task processing.","authors":"Thomas Küchelmann, Konstantinos Velentzas, Kai Essig, Thomas Schack","doi":"10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1294424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Visuocognitive performance is closely related to expertise in chess and has been scrutinized by several investigations in the last decades. The results indicate that experts' decision-making benefits from the chunking process, perception and visual strategies. Despite numerous studies which link these concepts, most of these investigations have employed common research designs that do not use real chess play, but create artificial laboratory conditions via screen-based chess stimuli and obtrusive stationary eye tracking with or without capturing of decision-making or virtual reality settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The present study assessed the visuocognitive performance of chess novices, intermediates and experts in a real chess setting. Instead of check detection, find-the-best-move tasks or to distinguish between regions of a chessboard that were relevant or irrelevant to the best move in previous studies, we introduced n-mate tasks and sequentially manipulated their difficulty. Due to the complexity of the tasks, we monitored players' visual strategies in a fine-graded initial phase (different time intervals instead of analysing a fixed number of first fixations) of task-solving and for complete trials, employing non-obtrusive mobile eye tracking, multi-sensor observation and full-automatic annotation of decision-making.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results revealed significant expertise-dependent differences in visuocognitive performance based on a circumstantial spatial and temporal analysis. In order to provide more detailed results, for the first time the analyses were performed under the special consideration of different time intervals and spatial scalings. In summary, experts showed a significantly higher number of fixations on areas of interest and empty squares between pieces in the task processing than less-skilled players. However, they had a strikingly low total number of fixations on the whole board and in complete trials.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>As a conclusion, experts apply different visual search strategies in problem-solving. Moreover, experts' visuocognitive processing benefits from stored chunks of mating constellations.</p>","PeriodicalId":12525,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Psychology","volume":"15 ","pages":"1294424"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11540784/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1294424","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Visuocognitive performance is closely related to expertise in chess and has been scrutinized by several investigations in the last decades. The results indicate that experts' decision-making benefits from the chunking process, perception and visual strategies. Despite numerous studies which link these concepts, most of these investigations have employed common research designs that do not use real chess play, but create artificial laboratory conditions via screen-based chess stimuli and obtrusive stationary eye tracking with or without capturing of decision-making or virtual reality settings.
Methods: The present study assessed the visuocognitive performance of chess novices, intermediates and experts in a real chess setting. Instead of check detection, find-the-best-move tasks or to distinguish between regions of a chessboard that were relevant or irrelevant to the best move in previous studies, we introduced n-mate tasks and sequentially manipulated their difficulty. Due to the complexity of the tasks, we monitored players' visual strategies in a fine-graded initial phase (different time intervals instead of analysing a fixed number of first fixations) of task-solving and for complete trials, employing non-obtrusive mobile eye tracking, multi-sensor observation and full-automatic annotation of decision-making.
Results: The results revealed significant expertise-dependent differences in visuocognitive performance based on a circumstantial spatial and temporal analysis. In order to provide more detailed results, for the first time the analyses were performed under the special consideration of different time intervals and spatial scalings. In summary, experts showed a significantly higher number of fixations on areas of interest and empty squares between pieces in the task processing than less-skilled players. However, they had a strikingly low total number of fixations on the whole board and in complete trials.
Discussion: As a conclusion, experts apply different visual search strategies in problem-solving. Moreover, experts' visuocognitive processing benefits from stored chunks of mating constellations.
期刊介绍:
Frontiers in Psychology is the largest journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research across the psychological sciences, from clinical research to cognitive science, from perception to consciousness, from imaging studies to human factors, and from animal cognition to social psychology. Field Chief Editor Axel Cleeremans at the Free University of Brussels is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. The journal publishes the best research across the entire field of psychology. Today, psychological science is becoming increasingly important at all levels of society, from the treatment of clinical disorders to our basic understanding of how the mind works. It is highly interdisciplinary, borrowing questions from philosophy, methods from neuroscience and insights from clinical practice - all in the goal of furthering our grasp of human nature and society, as well as our ability to develop new intervention methods.