Prediction of action outcome: Effects of available information about body structure

Abstract

Correctly perceiving the movements of opponents is essential in everyday life as well as in many sports. Several studies have shown a better prediction performance for detailed stimuli compared to point-light displays (PLDs). However, it remains unclear whether differences in prediction performance result from explicit information about articulation or from information about body shape. We therefore presented three different types of stimuli (PLDs, stick figures, and skinned avatars) with different amounts of available information of soccer players’ run-ups. Stimulus presentation was faded out at ball contact. Participants had to react to the perceived shot direction with a full-body movement. Results showed no differences for time to virtual ball contact between presentation modes. However, prediction performance was significantly better for avatars and stick figures compared to PLDs, but did not differ between avatars and stick figures, suggesting that explicit information about the articulation of the major joints is mainly relevant for better prediction performance, and plays a larger role than detailed information about body shape. We also tracked eye movements and found that gaze behavior for avatars differed from those for PLDs and stick figures, with no significant differences between PLDs and stick figures. This effect was due to more and longer fixations on the head when avatars were presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Data availability

None of the data or materials for the experiments reported here are available, and none of the experiments were preregistered.

References

  1. Abernethy, B., Gill, D. P., Parks, S. L., & Packer, S. T. (2001). Expertise and the perception of kinematic and situational probability information. Perception, 30(2), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1068/p2872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Atkinson, A. P., Dittrich, W. H., Gemmell, A. J., & Young, A. W. (2004). Emotion perception from dynamic and static body expressions in point-light and full-light displays. Perception, 33(6), 717–746. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Blake, R., & Shiffrar, M. (2007). Perception of human motion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433–436. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00357

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Diaz, G. J., Fajen, B. R., & Phillips, F. (2012). Anticipation from biological motion: The goalkeeper problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(4), 848–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dicks, M., Button, C., & Davids, K. (2010). Examination of gaze behavior under un situ and video simulation task constraints reveals differences in information pickup for perception. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72(3), 706–720. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dittrich, W. H., Troscianko, T., Lea, S. E. G., & Morgan, D. (1996). Perception of emotion from dynamic point-light displays represented in dance. Perception, 25(6), 727–738. https://doi.org/10.1068/p250727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fukuhara, K., Ida, H., Ogata, T., Ishii, M., & Higuchi, T. (2017). The role of proximal body information on anticipatory judgment in tennis using graphical information richness. PLOS ONE, 12(7), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hayhoe, M. M., & Ballard, D. (2005). Eye movements in natural behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.02.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hohmann, T., Troje, N. F., Olmos, A., & Munzert, J. (2011). The influence of motor expertise and motor experience on action and actor recognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(4), 403–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.525504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 14(2), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kleiner, M., Brainard, D. H., Pelli, D. G., Broussard, C., Wolf, T., & Niehorster, D. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception 36 ECVP Abstract Supplement. https://doi.org/10.1068/v070821

  13. Kozlowski, L. T., & Cutting, J. E. (1977). Recognizing the sex of a walker from a dynamic point-light display. Perception & Psychophysics, 21(6), 575–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kurz, J., Hegele, M., & Munzert, J. (2018). Gaze behavior in a natural environment with a task-relevant distractor: How the presence of a goalkeeper distracts the penalty taker. Frontiers in Psychology: Cognitive Science, 9:19, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kurz, J., & Munzert, J. (2018). How the experimental setting influences representativeness: A review of gaze behavior in football penalty takers. Frontiers in Psychology: Movement Science and Sport Psychology, 9:682. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lees, A., & Owens, L. (2011). Early visual cues associated with a directional place kick in soccer. Sports Biomechanics, 10(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2011.569565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Loper, M., Mahmood, N., & Black, M. J. (2014). MoSh: Motion and shape capture from sparse markers. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 33(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/2661229.2661273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lopes, J. E., Jacobs, D. M., Travieso, D., & Araújo, D. (2014). Predicting the lateral direction of deceptive and non-deceptive penalty kicks in football from the kinematics of the kicker. Human Movement Science, 36, 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2014.04.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mann, D. L., Abernethy, B., & Farrow, D. (2010). Action specificity increases anticipatory performance and the expert advantage in natural interceptive tasks. Acta Psychologica, 135(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mather, G., & Murdoch, L. (1994). Gender discrimination in biological motion displays based on dynamic cues. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 258, 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1994.0173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Morya, E., Ranvaud, R., & Pinheiro, W. M. (2003). Dynamics of visual feedback in a laboratory simulation of a penalty kick. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/0264041031000070840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Munzert, J., Hohmann, T., & Hossner, E. (2010). Discriminating throwing distances from point-light displays with masked ball flight. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440902757975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00366

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Perneger, T. V. (1998). What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjusments. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 316(7139), 1236–1238. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Saunders, D. R., Williamson, D. K., & Troje, N. F. (2010). Gaze patterns during perception of direction and gender from biological motion. Journal of Vision, 10(11), 9–9. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.11.9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Savelsbergh, G. J. P., van der Kamp, J., Williams, A. M., & Ward, P. (2002). Visual search, anticipation and expertise in soccer goalkeepers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130500101346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Savelsbergh, G. J. P., Van der Kamp, J., Williams, A. M., & Ward, P. (2005). Anticipation and visual search behaviour in expert soccer goalkeepers. Ergonomics, 48(11–14), 1686–1697. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130500101346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Shim, J., Carlton, L. G., Chow, J. W., & Chae, W.-S. (2005). The use of anticipatory visual cues by highly skilled tennis players. Journal of Motor Behavior, 37(2), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.37.2.164-175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shim, J., Carlton, L. G., & Kwon, Y. H. (2006). Perception of kinematic characteristics of tennis strokes for anticipating stroke type and direction. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(3), 326–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2006.10599367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Swann, C., Moran, A., & Piggott, D. (2015). Defining elite athletes: Issues in the study of expert performance in sport psychology. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16(P1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Troje, N. F. (2002). Decomposing biological motion: A framework for analysis and synthesis of human gait patterns. Journal of Vision, 2(5), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1167/2.5.2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Troje, N. F. (2008). Retrieving information from human movement patterns. In T. F. Shipley & J. M. Zacks (Eds.), Understanding Events: How Humans See, Represent, and Act on Events (pp. 308–334). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195188370.003.0014

  33. Troje, N. F. (2013). What is biological motion? Definition, stimuli, and paradigms. In M. D. Rutherford & V. A. Kuhlmeier (Eds.), Social Perception: Detection and Interpretation of Animacy, Agency and Intention (pp. 13–36). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262019279.003.0002

  34. Troje, N. F., Westhoff, C., & Lavrov, M. (2005). Person identification from biological motion: Effects of structural and kinematic cues. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(4), 667–675. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vignais, N., Bideau, B., Craig, C., Brault, S., Multon, F., Delamarche, P., & Kulpa, R. (2009). Does the level of graphical detail of a virtual handball thrower influence a goalkeeper’s motor response? Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 8(4), 501–508.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ward, P., Williams, A. M., & Bennett, S. J. (2002). Visual search and biological motion perception in tennis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73(1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2002.10608997

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Kurz.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kurz, J., Helm, F., Troje, N.F. et al. Prediction of action outcome: Effects of available information about body structure. Atten Percept Psychophys 82, 2076–2084 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01883-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Prediction
  • Kinematic information
  • Soccer penalty
  • Gaze behavior
  • Structural body information