» Articles » PMID: 30420821

Stepovers and Signal Detection: Response Sensitivity and Bias in the Differentiation of Genuine and Deceptive Football Actions

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2018 Nov 14
PMID 30420821
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The ability to differentiate genuine and deceptive actions was examined using a combination of spatial and temporal occlusion to examine sensitivity to lower body, upper body, and full body sources of visual information. High-skilled and low-skilled association football players judged whether a player genuinely intended to take the ball to the participant's left or right or intended to step over the ball then take it in the other direction. Signal detection analysis was used to calculate measures of sensitivity () in differentiating genuine and deceptive actions and bias () toward judging an action to be genuine or deceptive. Analysis revealed that high-skilled players had higher sensitivity than low-skilled players and this was consistent across all spatial occlusion conditions. Low-skilled players were more biased toward judging actions to be genuine. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves revealed that accuracy on deceptive trials in the lower body and full body conditions most accurately classified participants as high-skilled or low-skilled. The results highlight the value of using signal detection analysis in studies of deceptive actions. They suggest that information from the lower body or upper body was sufficient for differentiating genuine and deceptive actions and that global information concurrently derived from these sources was not necessary to support the expert advantage.

Citing Articles

Context modulates evidence accumulation in split-second handball penalty decisions.

Weinberg H, Muller F, Canal-Bruland R Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2025; 10(1):2.

PMID: 39900736 PMC: 11790534. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-025-00615-8.


Expertise and Deceptive Movements in Sport.

Raffan R, Mann D, Savelsbergh G Sports Med Open. 2024; 10(1):73.

PMID: 38861037 PMC: 11166615. DOI: 10.1186/s40798-024-00730-8.


Maximising Grip on Deception and Disguise: Expert Sports Performance During Competitive Interactions.

Ramsey H, Dicks M, Hope L, Reddy V Sports Med Open. 2022; 8(1):47.

PMID: 35394567 PMC: 8993973. DOI: 10.1186/s40798-022-00441-y.


Extending Research on Deception in Sport - Combining Perception and Kinematic Approaches.

Panten J, Loffing F, Baker J, Schorer J Front Psychol. 2019; 10:2650.

PMID: 31849767 PMC: 6892972. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02650.

References
1.
Guldenpenning I, Steinke A, Koester D, Schack T . Athletes and novices are differently capable to recognize feint and non-feint actions. Exp Brain Res. 2013; 230(3):333-43. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-013-3658-2. View

2.
Ward P, Williams A, Bennett S . Visual search and biological motion perception in tennis. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2002; 73(1):107-12. DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2002.10608997. View

3.
Lopes J, Jacobs D, Travieso D, Araujo D . Predicting the lateral direction of deceptive and non-deceptive penalty kicks in football from the kinematics of the kicker. Hum Mov Sci. 2014; 36:199-216. DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2014.04.004. View

4.
Wright M, Bishop D, Jackson R, Abernethy B . Brain regions concerned with the identification of deceptive soccer moves by higher-skilled and lower-skilled players. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014; 7:851. PMC: 3865769. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00851. View

5.
Huys R, Canal-Bruland R, Hagemann N, Beek P, Smeeton N, Williams A . Global information pickup underpins anticipation of tennis shot direction. J Mot Behav. 2009; 41(2):158-71. DOI: 10.3200/JMBR.41.2.158-171. View