ArticleBrain sciences2021
The Effect of Judgement Bias on Cue Utilization for Shot Prediction in Basketball Athletes.
Article in Brain sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConcerning the judgments bias and cue utilization in basketball athletes, previous shot anticipation tasks were hard to examine in regards to whether the experts' judgement bias relies more on the cue of the player's body or the ball trajectory.
methodsFour types of body-ball cues shots were employed: IN-IN, IN-OUT, OUT-IN, and OUT-OUT. Four temporal stages (i.e., shooting, rising, high point, and falling) were divided during a shot. Forty-two participants predicted the fate of the ball after watching the shot videos.
resultsThe results suggested that for the shooting, rising, and high point phase, compared to the non-athletes, the experts provided superior predictions for IN-IN condition and OUT-IN condition but fewer accurate predictions for IN-OUT condition and OUT-OUT condition. Moreover, a higher bias toward predicting the shots as "in" for the athletes than the non-athletes under early temporal conditions was confirmed.
conclusionsThese findings strengthen the idea that the IN cues from both body information and ball trajectory could elicit the experts' judgement bias for made shots and then influence their response, thus rendered two distinct (e.g., impeding and facilitating) effects for the incongruent body-ball cues, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.