ArticlePloS one2025
Outcome prediction abilities of basketball players shooting free throws.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Skilled athletes, such as basketball players, seem to anticipate the outcome of their actions, likely due to well-developed internal models that enhance predictive accuracy. This study explores whether experienced basketball players can verbally predict their free throw outcomes above chance, examining the role of expertise and potential biases in prediction accuracy. Therefore, 19 experienced basketball players performed 500 free throws in a laboratory setting. Within 2.5 seconds of visual and acoustic occlusion after ball release, they had to predict the result of every second trial as either a hit or a miss. Individual prediction accuracies above chance were calculated, and the hit bias was quantified by a signal detection theory measure (criterion c). Speech characteristics (latency and amplitude) were used as an additional proxy to investigate the prediction process. It was hypothesized that experienced players would make faster predictions of successful shots and would articulate these with greater volume compared to unsuccessful ones, reflecting the processing of available information about their throw execution and heightened response bias toward success. Results showed that participants were able to significantly predict their free throw outcomes above chance level. An earlier described hit bias could be replicated and was further observed as a louder and faster articulation of hits than misses. Overall, natural motor experts, in this case basketball players, seem to access their internal models and use the gathered information to predict the outcome of their free throws. However, they show a bias to predict hits, which is also manifested in the speech characteristics of latency and amplitude.
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.