ArticlePloS one2025
The limits of action control for deceptive actions in sports: Response inhibition for the basketball pump fake.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deceptive actions in combat sports: an antagonistic decision-making perspective from the lens of "Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Even NBA players fall for pump fakes in approximately 73% of the time and initiate erroneous blocking movements. To investigate the spatio-temporal and dynamic constraints of inhibition performance in basketball, the basketball-specific anticipation-response inhibition (ARI) task was applied in a quasi-realistic scenario. To this end, a video of a basketball jump shot was presented and participants were instructed to jump up and press a buzzer at the ceiling to "block" the shot (go-trials). In 25% of all trials, a simulation of a pump fake was presented, and participants should withhold their response (stop-trials). To measure response inhibition ability, the point of no return (PNR, signifying a response-inhibition rate of 50%) was calculated. The PNR was located 462 ms before the point of ball release. The response-precision performance improved from the first half of the experiment (Blocks 1-3) to the second half of the experiment (Blocks 4-6), indicating effects of short-term practice. In addition, participants shifted their priority in favor of inhibition after a preceding stop-trial, which is reminiscent of strategic adaptations. Selective biomechanical parameters, measured by a force plate, revealed that response initiation becomes more likely the closer the progression of the execution of the deceptive action moves towards the PNR. Once a response is initiated, it can only be aborted in the early phase of movement execution before the PNR is reached. As a consequence, participants delayed their response in a go-trial, used less force, and slowed down their movements to increase the probability to successfully inhibit the defensive action.
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.