Aiming to Deceive: Examining the Role of the Quiet Eye During Deceptive Aiming Actions

Abstract

1In three experiments, we explored the use of deceptive gaze in soccer penalty takers using eye-2 tracking equipment. In Experiment 1, players competed against a goalkeeper while taking 3 unconstrained shots. Results indicated that when players used deception (looking to the opposite 4 side to which they shot) they extended the duration of their final aiming (quiet-eye; QE) fixation 5 and maintained shooting accuracy. In Experiment 2, with no goalkeeper present players still used 6 extended QE durations when using a deceptive strategy, but this time their accuracy suffered. In 7 Experiment 3, we manipulated the goalkeeper's location while controlling for the use of 8 peripheral vision and memory of goal size. Results indicated that increased QE durations were 9 required when using deceptive aiming, and that accuracy was influenced by the position of the 10 goalkeeper. We conclude that during deceptive aiming, soccer players maintain accuracy by 11 covertly processing information related to the goalkeeper's location. The ability to predict the mental state and behavioral intentions of others from their gaze 2 direction has been fundamental to our evolutionary success (Emery, 2000). Accordingly, 3humans have developed a predisposition to focus on the gaze direction of others when attempting 4 to interpret and anticipate their future actions (Blakemore, Winston, & Frith, 2004). For example, 5Nummenmaa, Hyona and Hietanen (2009) have shown that pedestrians use eye-movements to 6 indicate their intended direction of travel, and that approaching pedestrians use this information 7 to avoid collisions. However, the predisposition to focus on the gaze of others can be exploited 8 through the use of deceptive gaze behaviors that aim to disguise the deceiver's future intentions 9 (Emery, 2000). Such deceptive behaviors are readily observable in sport (Güldenpenning, Kunde 10 & Weigelt, 2017). 11In a sporting context these deceptive behaviors are often referred to as 'head-fakes ' (e.g., 12 Basketball; Kunde, Skirde & Weigelt, 2011) and are characterized by performers faking gaze in 13 one direction whilst shooting or passing to another. At the heart of their use is a deliberate 14 attempt to misdirect the attention of an opponent and negatively influence their responsive 15 actions in order to create a performance advantage. Despite their frequency in sport, there have 16 been few empirical studies that have explored the cognitive factors behind their use (Kunde et al, 17 2011). Those that have done so have focused on expert and novice differences in the ability to 18 detect deceptive actions across a range of sports; including handball (Canal-Bruland & Schmidt, 19 2009; Canal-Bruland, van der Kamp, & van Kesteren, 2010), rugby (Jackson, Warren, & 20 Abernethy, 2006), basketball (Sebanz & Shiffrar, 2009) and soccer goalkeeping (Dicks, Uehara, 21 & Lima, 2011;Smeeton & Williams, 2012; Tomeo, Cesari, Aglioti, & Urgesi, 2012). The 22 consensus from these studies suggests that experts are better a...

Keep Your Eye on the Ball; the Impact of an Anticipatory Fixation During Successful and Unsuccessful Soccer Penalty Kicks

“…Prior to taking a penalty, the participants, were instructed to kick the ball in an area of the goal where they thought they could score and the goalkeeper would not be able to dive and reach, avoiding use of the keeper dependent strategy ( Wood and Wilson, 2010b ), or pausing (deceptive strategy) during the run up to take the penalty ( Wood et al, 2017 ). The same goalkeeper was used throughout the study (13 years experience) and was instructed to stand in the center of the goal, with their arms positioned outstretched and remain still, in the same position in the goal until the football was kicked.…”

Challenge and threat states, performance, and attentional control during a pressurized soccer penalty task.

“…The same goalkeeper was used throughout testing. Given that goalkeeper movement, positioning, and posture have been shown to influence penalty taking accuracy and attentional control (e.g., Van der Kamp & Masters, 2008;Wood, Vine, Parr, & Wilson, 2017), the goalkeeper was instructed to stand still in the centre of the goal with their knees bent and arms spread out to the side for all participants. However, it should be noted that to elevate pressure, participants were informed that the goalkeeper would attempt to save their soccer penalty kick.…”

Think, see, do: Executive function, visual attention, and soccer penalty performance.

“…This method involved separating the goal into 12-zones (6-zones in each half of the goal) ranging from 0 cm at the centre to 180 cm at each respective post. The location was determined using frame-by-frame analysis in Quiet Eye Solutions to deduce the distance of the final fixation from the centre of the goal in cm (i.e., higher scores represent distally located quiet eye fixations whereas lower scores represent centrally located quiet eye fixations; as in Wood et al, 2017).…”