| Title |
Visual search behaviors of association football referees during assessment of foul play situations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41235-016-0013-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jochim Spitz, Koen Put, Johan Wagemans, A. Mark Williams, Werner F. Helsen |
| Abstract |
It is well reported that expert athletes have refined perceptual-cognitive skills and fixate on more informative areas during representative tasks. These perceptual-cognitive skills are also crucial to performance within the domain of sports officials. We examined the visual scan patterns of elite and sub-elite association football referees while assessing foul play situations. These foul play situations (open play and corner kick situations) were presented on a Tobii T120 Eye Tracking monitor. The elite referees made more accurate decisions and differences in their visual search behaviors were observed. For the open play situations, referees in the elite group spent significantly more time fixating the most informative area of the attacking player (contact zone) and less time fixating the body part that was not involved in the infringement (non-contact zone). Furthermore, the average total fixation time in the contact zone and non-contact zone tended to differ between the elite and sub-elite referees in corner kick situations. In conclusion, elite level referees have learned to discern relevant from less-relevant information in the same way as expert athletes. Findings have implications for the development of perceptual training programs for sport officials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 25% |
| Japan | 4 | 17% |
| United States | 4 | 17% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 4% |
| Cameroon | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 71% |
| Scientists | 3 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 115 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Unknown | 32 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 35 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 9% |
| Psychology | 9 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 36 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 109. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 July 2021.
All research outputs
#352,050
of 23,885,338 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#30
of 337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,257
of 315,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#4
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,885,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.