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

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

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.