Individual differences in the visual control of intercepting a penalty kick in association football
Introduction
Research has demonstrated that human behaviors such as stair climbing (Warren, 1984), sitting (Mark, 1987), and catching fly balls (Oudejans, Michaels, Bakker, & Dolné, 1996) are predicated on the accurate visual perception of affordances (i.e., opportunities for action: Gibson, 1979) for a given set of environmental conditions. The perception of an affordance entails the perception of what a set of ecological constraints offers an actor relative to his/her bodily dimensions or action capabilities (Fajen, 2005a, Fajen, 2005b, Gibson, 1979, Michaels, 2003, Stoffregen, 2000, Stoffregen, 2003). Such animal–environment relations are measured using an intrinsic metric involving a dimensionless pi-number, which expresses the ratio of a component of an animal’s action system against a reciprocal environmental property (see Warren, 1984). For example, research revealed how a critical ratio between hand size and object, that remained invariant across child development, defined the transition between grasping with one and two hands in a prehension task (van der Kamp, Savelsbergh, & Davis, 1998). Furthermore, it has recently been demonstrated that actors are also capable of visually perceiving affordances offered by the environment for another person’s actions (Ramenzoni et al., 2008, Stoffregen et al., 1999).
It has been argued that much of the affordance research has analogues in sport environments (Fajen, Riley, & Turvey, 2009). For example, Pijpers, Oudejans, and Bakker (2007) recently reported a functional relationship between participants’ perceived opportunities for action and their actual action capabilities in a wall climbing task. Pepping and Li (2005) demonstrated that actors are capable of perceiving their action capabilities for reaching an overhead ball, a requisite skill for interceptive actions in fast-ball sports such as cricket and volleyball. Equally important to understanding the performance of interceptive actions is evidence indicating that skilled performers overcome the spatiotemporal constraints of fast-ball sports through the pickup of visual information presented within an opponent’s emergent motion (e.g., Farrow & Abernethy, 2003). In this respect, data indicate that visual anticipation for goalkeepers in the football penalty kick is predicated on differences in information pickup coupled to later initiated movement responses (Savelsbergh, van der Kamp, Williams, & Ward, 2005).
The study of Savelsbergh and colleagues (2005; see also, Savelsbergh, Williams, van der Kamp, & Ward, 2002), like much of the visual anticipation research, relied on video simulation tasks that examine perceptual judgments using simplified response measures (e.g., a button press: Cañal-Bruland & Schmidt, 2009; or simplified body movement: Jackson, Warren, & Abernethy, 2006). This approach contrasts with the complex motor actions that require complementary vision for perception and action (see van der Kamp, Rivas, van Doorn, & Savelsbergh, 2008). Simulated experimental constraints have been criticized as possible methodological limitations that confine our understanding of skilled perception and action. For example, Cañal-Bruland and Schmidt (2009) recently acknowledged that “a simple two-choice button press response…differs fundamentally from typical whole body and temporarily constrained movements that are required in the natural setting…the laboratory setting may have led to an elimination of perception–action couplings, and may have impeded the influence of the motor system” (p. 239–240). A particular concern is that simulation experiments have studied perception in isolation from requisite actions (van der Kamp et al., 2008). Furthermore, the experimental conditions of video simulation tasks fail to represent the array of stimuli available for perception and action in an athlete’s natural environment (see Brunswik, 1956, Dhami et al., 2004).
Another major concern in the perceptual expertise literature, as with many studies of perception and action (see Withagen & Chemero, 2009), is the apparent presumption that there is an optimal or universal perceptual strategy towards which all skilled participants should aspire. This assumption has been questioned by observations of within-group differences in gaze behaviors revealed between successful and less successful athletes with the same level of performance experience (e.g., Savelsbergh et al., 2005, Vaeyens et al., 2007). The tendency to average data in statistical analyses can mask observations of functional levels of performance variability across individual participants (Newell et al., 2001, Withagen and Chemero, 2009). Support for such an assertion can be reconciled by recent studies that have emphasized individual differences in perceptual learning (Jacobs et al., 2001, Withagen and van Wermeskerken, 2009), coordination acquisition (Chow et al., 2008, Liu et al., 2006) and even the achievement of feeding behaviors in mountain gorillas (Tennie, Hedwig, Call, & Tomasello, 2008).
The examination of affordances in sport environments may offer a theoretical means to address some of the concerns highlighted above: particularly the issue of interdependence of perception and action and the examination of individual differences in the visual regulation of action. For example, if the actualization of an affordance is action-scaled in goalkeeping performance of the penalty kick, then differences in an individual’s action capabilities (e.g., agility) should affect the timing of movement initiation. That is, a faster goalkeeper will be able to initiate movement closer to the moment of penalty taker foot-ball contact in comparison with a slower goalkeeper. This idea is captured within Fajen’s (e.g., Fajen, 2005b) model of affordance-based control. He proposed that the visual control of successful action is predicated on an actor’s sensitivity to their own action capabilities. For example, during visually regulated braking, the necessary deceleration required to stop must not exceed the maximum possible deceleration (Fajen, 2005a). Thus, one’s own action capabilities place a critical action boundary that limits successful performance (Fajen, 2005b). The implication is that there may be a bias in the timing of an actor’s actions that ensures that they remain within a “safe” region that separates achievable from impossible actions (Fajen & Devaney, 2006). The action capabilities of a performer that allow a particular action for a given set of environmental conditions have been termed by some ecological psychologists as effectivities (e.g., see Turvey, 1992). However, the exact role of effectivities within the theory of affordances is a source of continued discussion (for recent examples, see Michaels, 2003, Pijpers et al., 2007, Stoffregen, 2003). Therefore, with such debate in mind, the term action capability is used in the present article following Fajen’s (2005b) model of affordance-based control.
If individual differences in action capabilities do indeed affect the timing and accuracy of response behaviors, then there would be imperative implications for understanding vision for perception and action during fast-ball sports. For example, experimental conditions that force participants to rely on advance information alone (e.g., movements of an opponent rather than additional ball-flight information) have been shown to result in a decrease in the accuracy of skilled athletes’ perceptual judgments (Farrow & Abernethy, 2003) and increase their vulnerability to deception (Rowe, Horswill, Kronvall-Parkinson, Poulter, & McKenna, 2009). Following Fajen’s (2005b) model of affordance-based control, if a goalkeeper’s timing of movement initiation against a penalty kick is constrained by their action capabilities, it is plausible that slower goalkeepers may be forced to couple their movements to earlier penalty taker kinematic information compared to faster goalkeepers. Such action boundaries may predispose slower goalkeepers to lower levels of performance accuracy while also increasing their susceptibility to deception.
In the present study, we investigated a group of experienced goalkeepers to assess whether individual differences in action capabilities affected the timing of response behaviors when facing deceptive and non-deceptive penalty kicks. We tested the specific hypothesis that skilled goalkeepers scale the timing of their movement initiation when facing penalty kicks to their own action capabilities. If so, goalkeepers must perceive the penalty task in terms of the time it requires them to reach the anticipated location of the ball as it is kicked towards the goal.
Section snippets
Participants
Seven experienced association football goalkeepers (M age = 23.4 years, SD = 4.2) with 11.7 (SD = 4.7) years of competitive association football experience as goalkeepers were recruited as participants. One penalty taker was recruited to execute all kicks. The player was matched to the goalkeepers by performance standard and length of experience. Prior to testing and contacting participants, ethical clearance was obtained from the local University ethics committee. All players provided written consent
Baseline movement times
Table 1 shows the individual goalkeeper mean BMTs for each target location. A mixed ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of location, F(5, 105) = 19.34, p < .0001, η2 = .48, goalkeeper, F(6, 21) = 17.37, p < .0001, η2 = .96, and a location by goalkeeper interaction F(30, 105) = 3.827, p < .0001, η2 = .52. Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparisons with an adjusted alpha-level of .001 revealed that participant 3 (M = 750 ms, SE = 74) had the shortest BMT which was less than all other goalkeepers. Participant 4 (M = 820
Discussion
Data revealed that individual differences in action capabilities of skilled goalkeepers affected the timing of movement responses when facing the penalty kick in association football. Results indicated a correlation between goalkeeper BMT and PKMT, implying that the faster the goalkeeper (small BMT) the later the goal-keeping action was initiated (small PKMT). Importantly, the between-participant variation in PKMT (Fig. 1) indicated individual differences in the information-movement couplings
References (42)
- et al.
Response bias in judging deceptive movements
Acta Psychologica
(2009) - et al.
Coordination changes in a discrete multi-articular action as a function of practice
Acta Psychologica
(2008) - et al.
Anticipation skill and susceptibility to deceptive movement
Acta Psychologica
(2006) Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments
(1956)- et al.
The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition
Psychological Bulletin
(2004) Calibration, information, and control strategies for braking to avoid a collision
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
(2005)Perceiving possibilities for action: On the necessity of calibration and perceptual learning for the visual guidance of action
Perception
(2005)- et al.
Learning to control collisions: The role of perceptual attunement and action boundaries
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
(2006) - et al.
Information, affordances and the control of action in sport
International Journal of Sport Psychology
(2009) - et al.
Do expertise and the degree of perception–action coupling affect natural perceptual anticipatory performance?
Perception
(2003)
The ecological approach to visual perception
Analysis of technique of goalkeepers during the penalty kick
Journal of Sports Sciences
On the dynamic information underlying visual anticipation skill
Perception & Psychophysics
Learning to visually perceive the relative mass of colliding balls in globally and locally constrained task ecologies
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Qualitative and quantitative changes in the dynamics of motor learning
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Eyeheight-scaled information about affordances: A study of sitting and stair climbing
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Contrasting approaches to perceiving and acting with others
Ecological Psychology
Affordances: Four points of debate
Ecological Psychology
Visual behaviors of soccer players while kicking with the inside of the foot
Perceptual and Motor Skills
Time scales in motor learning and development
Psychological Review
The relevance of action in perceiving affordances: Perception of catchableness of fly balls
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Cited by (122)
The effectiveness of penalty takers' deception: A scoping review
2023, Human Movement ScienceThe obligation to succeed when it matters the most–The influence of skill and pressure on the success in football penalty kicks
2023, Psychology of Sport and ExerciseCitation Excerpt :A typical penalty that is shot with a speed of about 20 m/s reaches the goal-line after about 500–600 ms (Franks & Harvey, 1997; Kuhn, 1988; van der Kamp, Dicks, Navia, & Noël, 2018; Wood et al., 2015). Therefore, a well-executed penalty kick to the distal areas of the goal is almost impossible to save for a goalkeeper due to constraints on their reaction time (Bar-Eli & Azar, 2009; Bowtell, King, & Pain, 2009; Dicks, Davids, & Button, 2010a; Franks & Harvey, 1997; Tsai, 2005; van der Kamp et al., 2018; Wood et al., 2015). In addition, research has shown that penalties that are kicked into the upper third of the goal are hardly ever saved by the goalkeeper, but surprisingly, only about 15% of penalties are kicked into this area (Almeida, Volossovitch, & Duarte, 2016; Bar-Eli & Azar, 2009).
Perceiving the inertial properties of actions in anticipation skill
2023, Psychology of Sport and ExerciseShot deception in basketball: Gaze and anticipation strategy in defence
2022, Human Movement ScienceAffordance-based control in deceptive and non-deceptive penalties in soccer goalkeeping: Gender matters!
2022, Psychology of Sport and ExerciseCitation Excerpt :Congruent with our prediction, notwithstanding this difference in the resultant constraints with which female and male goalkeepers were confronted, they exhibited a similar pattern of adaptation to satisfy the resultant constraint. Nevertheless, differences remained between the two genders: male goalkeepers tended to initiate the lateral dive slightly beyond the boundaries set by resultant constraint (see also Dicks et al., 2010a; Navia et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2021), while female goalkeepers initiated the lateral dive just in time within the boundaries. This points to a difference in calibration or scaling of action capabilities to the situational constraints.