Experiments for Skill

Acquisition and Sports

Performance

Introduction
The purpose of this section is to provide lecturers and teachers with some ideas for
experiments that can be used to illustrate issues raised in each of the chapters. It will
also help students to understand research findings and to write a research report. I
am aware that everyone does not have the same facilities, which will vary from not
having any specialist equipment at all to well-equipped laboratories. Therefore, in
most experiments, I have provided optional Methods, one for those who have no
specialist equipment and one for those with some specialist equipment. I am also
well aware that policies regarding the teaching of statistics vary between institutions,
as does the availability of statistical packages for student use. Therefore, where
necessary, I have included alternative ways of calculating inferential statistics. If
class sizes are small, I suggest that you use 10% probability (p = 0.10) rather than
5% (p = 0.05) for significance. Otherwise you get Type II errors and students find
themselves having to argue that something is non-significant when, in fact, it is
significant.

For lecturers and teachers

How you choose to use this is, of course, up to you. It can be used as a laboratory manual
or in class. You can also, obviously, make alterations to the designs and protocols.
Students can be required to write up each experiment or specific experiments or the
results can be used as the basis for seminars.

Acquisition and Performance of Sports Skills, Second Edition. Terry McMorris.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion website: [Link]/go/mcmorris/acquisitionsportsskills
For students
As well as carrying out the experiments, you can use them to help you design your own
experiments for projects. At the end of each experiment, I have provided you with some
suggested readings. These are to help you make sense of the experiments and to use in
the Discussion section when writing up a research report. However, you need to
undertake additional reading. To do this you need to se use search engines like Sports
Discus, PubMed, Web of Knowledge, Bing, Google and Google Scholar. When reading
research reports you will implicitly learn how to write a report. Each journal has its own
style of writing and your university may well have its own style. However, the norm is
to have Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion sections. In the Introduction, you
set out the problem, stating the research question, and any hypotheses. In the Method,
one normally follows a description of participants followed by a description of tests and
finally the procedure. You will see that I have included sub-sections called ‘apparatus’
and ‘organization’, these are for the use of your lecturers and are not normally included
in a Method section, although some journals have a sub-section called ‘materials’. One
also often sees a subsection called ‘statistical analysis’. I have included this in the results
section. In the Results section, simply state the results, do not comment on them. In
the Discussion, show how the findings relate to past research and theory discussed.
If the study is an applied study, state what the implications are for practical situations.
Experiment 1: Are Abilities
Specific?

Introduction
Abilities refer to basic innate actions that underlie skillful performance. Henry (1968)
found no significant correlations between abilities and, therefore, claimed that they
were specific and unique. Fleishman (1954), however, argued that there were small to
moderate, significant correlations between abilities that possessed similar factors.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine whether or not there are correlations
between chosen abilities. If all of the abilities correlate significantly, this would support
general ability theory. If the balance abilities correlate significantly and the reaction
time abilities do likewise, we can say that the results support Fleishman. However, if
there are no significant correlations, Henry’s specificity hypothesis is supported.

Method A
Apparatus
Gymnastics bench, stopwatch, 30 cm (12 inch) ruler (or similar) and blindfold.

Tests
Static balance
Wearing the blindfold, the participant stands on their non-dominant leg for as long as
possible (set a time limit of 60 s). The experimenter takes the time. Have three trials. The
dependent variable is the mean time.

Acquisition and Performance of Sports Skills, Second Edition. Terry McMorris.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion website: [Link]/go/mcmorris/acquisitionsportsskills
Ballistic balance
Turn the gymnastics bench upside down. Walk across the bar at the bottom as quickly as
possible. Have safety mats at either side of the bar in case the person falls. The
experimenter times the walk. Have three trials. The dependent variable is the mean time.

Visual reaction time

The participant places their thumb and index finger either side of the ruler, at the zero
mark. The experimenter says ‘ready’ before they let the ruler fall. Vary the time of the
foreperiods (time between saying ‘ready’ to actually dropping the ruler). The participant
tries to catch the ruler, between their finger and thumb, as fast as possible. The distance
from zero that the participant catches the ruler measures the reaction. Have 20 trials. The
dependent variable is the mean distance.

Auditory reaction time

The same as for visual reaction time except that the partipcant wears the blindfold
and the experimenter says ‘now’ as they let go of the ruler. Have 20 trials. The depend-
ent variable is the mean distance.

Method B
Apparatus
Gymnastics bench, stabiliometer, stopwatch, reaction timer.

Tests
Ballistic balance
Turn the gymnastics bench upside down. Walk across the bar at the bottom as quickly as
possible. Have safety mats at either side of the bar in case the person falls. The
experimenter times the walk. Have three trials. The dependent variable is the mean time.

Dynamic balance
Participants try to balance on the stabiliometer for 60 s. Experimenters set the ‘in
balance’ range as being 15º. Have three trials. The dependent variable is the mean time.

Visual reaction time

Use one light and one response button. The participant presses the button as soon as
possible following illumination. The experimenter says ‘ready’ before they illuminate
the light (in most choice reaction timers there is a warning light included but this needs
to be set). Vary the time of the foreperiods (time between saying ‘ready’ and illuminat-
ing the light). Have 20 trials. The dependent variable is the mean time.
Auditory reaction time
The same as for visual reaction time except that the experimenter activates the buzzer
rather than the light. The participant presses the button as soon as possible following the
sound of the buzzer. Have 20 trials. The dependent variable is the mean time.

Procedure
Each participant undertakes each of the tests.

Results
Fill in the master sheet (see Appendix 1A). Using all of the data for the class or group
carryout a series of Pearson correlations between the different dependent variables.

Discussion
Did the balance abilities correlate significantly?
Did the reaction time abilities correlate significantly?
Were there any correlations between balance and reaction time abilities?
What do these results say about Fleishman’s theory, Henry’s theory and general motor
ability theory?
How do these results fit in with past research and theory?

References
Fleishman, E. A. (1954). Dimensional analysis of psychomotor abilities. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 48: 437–454.
Henry, F. M. (1968). Specificity vs. generality in learning motor skill. In Brown, R. C. and
Kenyon, G. S. (Eds.), Classical studies on physical activity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, pp. 331–340.

Suggested readings
The above plus
Fleishman, E. A. (1966). Human abilities and the acquisition of skill. In Bilodeau, E. A. (ed.),
Acquisition of skill. Academic Press, New York, pp. 147–167.
Fleishman, E. A. (1967). Development of a behavior taxonomy for human tasks: A correlational-
experimental approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51; 1–10.
Haga, M., Pedersen, A. V. and Sigmundsson, H. (2008). Interrelationship among selected measures
of motor skills. Child Care, Health and Development, 34: 245–248.
Appendix 1A

Example of individual score sheet

Trial Static balance Dynamic balance Visual reaction time Auditory reaction time

1
2
3
4
5
Sum
Mean

Master sheet
Name Static balance Dynamic balance Visual reaction time Auditory reaction time

Mean
SD

Acquisition and Performance of Sports Skills, Second Edition. Terry McMorris.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion website: [Link]/go/mcmorris/acquisitionsportsskills
Experiment 2: Expertise
and Selective Attention

Introduction
Selective attention refers to the skill of focusing attention onto task relevant cues at
the expense of irrelevant ones. It is thought that we need to use selective attention
because we have a limited amount of channel space in which to process information
(Welford, 1968). Expert performers can ignore irrelevant information and respond
only to relevant cues. Therefore, in this experiment, we compare the performance of
individuals, who participate in ball games and those involved in non-ball games sports
such as track and field, swimming, gymnastics and so on, on a selective attention task.
We hypothesize that the ball games players will preform significantly better than the
non-ball games players.

Method A
Apparatus
Table tennis balls (these should include some coloured balls – wipe board markers can
be used to colour the balls), a cylindrical piece of cardboard (~20 cm long), called the
cardboard shoot.

Participants
Divide the class into those who play ball games, expert groups, and those who do not,
novices group.

Acquisition and Performance of Sports Skills, Second Edition. Terry McMorris.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion website: [Link]/go/mcmorris/acquisitionsportsskills
Procedure
The experimenter places 30 balls (20 white and 10 coloured) in a box, hidden from the
participant’s view. The top of the cardboard shoot is hidden from the participant’s view (use
a cloth if necessary). The participant places their preferred hand on a table, ~1.5 m below
the bottom of the shoot and 10 cm to the side. The experimenter gives a warning signal by
saying ‘ready’ before letting one of the balls drop through the shoot (vary the length of this
foreperiod). The participant is instructed to try to catch the white balls but leave the coloured
balls alone and not move his/her hand from the table. The experimenter randomly chooses
a ball and continues until the box is empty. For white balls, 2 points are given for a successful
catch, and one if the hand makes contact with the ball but it is dropped. For the coloured
balls, 2 points are given if the hand remains on the table, –1 if the hand comes off the table
and –2 if the ball is caught. The total score is the dependent variable.

Method B
Apparatus
Table tennis balls or tennis balls (these should include some coloured balls – wipe board
markers can be used to colour table tennis balls), table tennis ball firer or tennis ball firer.

Participants
Divide the class into those who play ball games, expert groups, and those who do not,
novices group.

Procedure
The experimenter places 30 balls (20 white and 10 coloured) in a box, hidden from the
participant’s view. The top of the ball firer is hidden from the participant’s view (use a
cloth if necessary). Based on the speed at which the the ball firer is set; the participant sits
at a distance which allows her/him to comfortably catch the ball. The participant places
their preferred hand on a table, ~10 cm to the side of them. The experimenter gives a warn-
ing signal by saying ‘ready’ before placing one of the balls into the ball firer (vary the
length of this foreperiod). The participant is instructed to try to catch the white balls but
leave the coloured balls alone and not move his/her hand from the table. The experimenter
randomly chooses a ball and continues until the box is empty. For white balls, 2 points are
given for a successful catch, one if the hand makes contact with the ball but it is dropped.
For the coloured balls, 2 points are given if the hand remains on the table, –1 if the hand
comes off the table and –2 if the ball is caught. The total score is the dependent variable.

Results
Scores for the expert group and novice group are compared using a one-tailed,
independent samples t-test. It is one-tailed because we are testing a directional hypoth-
esis, i.e. we have hypothesized that the experts will do better than the novices. It is
independent because there are different individuals in each group and they are not
matched in anyway.
Discussion
Did the experts do significantly better than the novices?
Was there a large difference between groups?
Do you think that past experiences of the novice group might have affected these results?
Might you get different results if your novice group were made up of sedentary,
non-athletic individuals?
How do these results fit in with past research and theory?

Reference
Welford, A. T. (1968). Fundamentals of skill. Methuen: London.

Suggested readings
The above plus
Allard, F., Graham, S. and Paarsalu, M. E. (1980). Perception in sport: basketball. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 2: 14–21.
Allard, F. and Starkes, J. M. (1980). Perception in sport: volleyball. Journal of Sport Psychology,
2: 22–33.
Mori, S. and Shimada, T. (2013). Expert anticipation from deceptive action. Attention, Perception
& Psychophysics, 75: 751–770.
Experiment 3: Expertise
and Decision Making

Introduction
Decision making is ‘knowing which technique to use in any given situation’ (Knapp, 1963,
p. 3). Previous research has shown experts to be better than novices (McMorris & Beazeley,
1997; Vaeyens et al., 2007) and it is generally thought that decision making improves with
experience. Therefore, in this study, we examined the decision-making performance of
experts and novices in a _____________ (add your chosen activity) sports-specific task.

Method A
Apparatus
Choose a game of which sufficient class members will have some experience so that an
expert group can be formed. Devise a decision-making test using a multi-choice format
(follow the example from McMorris et al., 2006, in Appendix 3A). Make between 10
and 15 trials.

Participants
Divide the class into those with experience of the task, expert group, and those with
limited or no experience, novice group.

Procedure
The experimenter gives the class the trials face down on their desk. The experimenter
tells the class to turn over the first trial. They have a separate answer sheet numbered
1–15. On the answer sheet they mark a, b, c or d dependent on which they think is the

Acquisition and Performance of Sports Skills, Second Edition. Terry McMorris.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion website: [Link]/go/mcmorris/acquisitionsportsskills
correct action for the player in possession of the ball (or puck in ice hockey). The
experimenter tells the class to stop answering that question after 5 s and to turn to
the next trial. The dependent variable is the number of correct answers.

Method B
Apparatus
A slide projector fitted with a tachistoscopic timing device. Choose a game of which
sufficient class members will have some experience so that an expert group can be
formed. Devise a decision-making test using a multi-choice format (follow the example
from McMorris et al., 2006, in Appendix 3A, below). Make between 10 and 15 trials.
Copy these onto slides

Participants
Divide the class into those with experience of the game, expert group, and those with
limited or no experience, novice groups.

Procedure
The experimenter presents each slide for 5 s using the slide projector. Participants have
an answer sheet numbered 1–15. On the answer sheet they mark a, b, c or d dependent
on which they think is the correct action for the player in possession of the ball (or puck
in ice hockey). The dependent variable is the number of correct answers.

Results
Performance of the two groups is compared using a one-tailed, independent samples
t-test.

Discussion
Were the expert better than the novices?
Was there any effect of novices taking part in games which involve similar decisions?
How do these results fit in with past research and theory?
How realistic is this test?
Could you use this test as a way of learning decision making?

References
Knapp, B. (1963). Skill in sport: the attainment of proficiency. Routledge and Kegan Paul:
London.
McMorris, T. & Beazeley, A. (1997). Performance of experienced and inexperienced soccer
players on soccer specific tests of recall, visual search and decision-making. Journal of Human
Movement Studies, 33: 1–13.
McMorris, T., MacGillivary, W. W., Sproule , J. and Lomax, J. (2006). Cognitive development
and performance of 11, 13 and 15 year olds on a soccer-specific test of decision making.
International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4: 170–181.
Vaeyens, R., Lenoir, M., Williams, A. M. and Philippaerts, R. (2007) Mechanisms underpinning
successful decision making in skilled youth soccer players: An analysis of visual search
behaviors. Journal of Motor Behavior, 39: 395–408.

Suggested readings
The above plus
Helsen, W. and Pauwels, J. M. (1988). The use of a simulator and training of tactical skills in
soccer. In Reilly, T. Lees, A. Davids, K. and Murphy, W. J. (eds.), Science and football, Spon:
London, pp. 493–497.
Appendix 3A

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Attacker
Defender
Ball
Path of ball

Example of a soccer decision-making test.

Acquisition and Performance of Sports Skills, Second Edition. Terry McMorris.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion website: [Link]/go/mcmorris/acquisitionsportsskills
Experiment 4: Probability
and Choice Reaction Time

Introduction
Alain and Proteau (1980) and Dillon et al. (1989) found that reaction time to a stimulus
that has a 50% chance of being presented is significantly slower to that when there is a
90% or 80% chance of the stimulus being presented. In this experiment, we test these
claims. We hypothesize that mean times for the 50% conditions will be significantly
slower than for the 90% and 80% conditions.

Method A
Apparatus
Two 30 cm (12 inch) rulers or similar.

Procedure
The participant places the thumb and index finger, of their preferred hand, either side
of one of the rulers, at the zero mark. They place the thumb and index finger of their
non-preferred hand either side of the other ruler, also at the zero mark. The participant
is told that they have to catch whichever ruler is let fall, as quickly as possible. In
one condition they are told that each ruler will be dropped 50% of the time. In another
condition they are told that the ruler on the side of their preferred hand will be dropped
90% of the time and the other ruler 10%. In the third condition, they are told that the
ruler on the side of their preferred hand will be dropped 80% of the time and the other
ruler 20% (the experimenter will need a sheet of paper with the order of presentation
written on it). Before letting the ruler drop, the experimenter says ‘ready’. Vary the time
of the foreperiods (time between saying ‘ready’ to actually dropping the ruler).

Acquisition and Performance of Sports Skills, Second Edition. Terry McMorris.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion website: [Link]/go/mcmorris/acquisitionsportsskills
The distance from zero that the participant catches the ruler measures the reaction. Have
40 trials in each condition. Only measure performance by the preferred hand. The
dependent variable is the mean distance. Vary the order in which the participants carry
out each of the conditions, in order to limit learning effects. Allow 10 practice trials
before starting.

Method B
Apparatus
Choice reaction timer

Procedure
The participant places the index finger, of their preferred hand, on one of the res-
ponse buttons. They place the index finger of their non-preferred hand on another response
button. The participant is told that they have to press the button corresponding to
whichever light is illuminated, as quickly as possible. In one condition they are told that
each light will be illuminated 50% of the time. In another condition they are told that the
light above their preferred hand will be illuminated 90% of the time and the other light
10%. In the third condition, they are told that the light above their preferred hand will be
illuminated 80% of the time and the other light 20% (the experimenter will need a sheet
of paper with the order of presentation written on it). Before illuminating the light, the
experimenter says ‘ready’ (in most choice reaction timers there is a warning light
included but this needs to be set). Vary the time of the foreperiods. Have 40 trials in each
condition. Only record reaction time by the preferred hand. The dependent variable is
the mean time. Vary the order in which the participants carry out teach of the conditions,
in order to limit learning effects. Allow 10 practice trials before starting.

Results
Calculate each participant’s mean times (or distances) for each condition. Put these on
a Master sheet and carry out one of the following tests. The correct test is a one-way
repeated measures analysis of variance (RM ANOVA). It is repeated measures because
everyone has carried out all of the tests. RM ANOVA can be found in most statistics
packages and also on some scientific calculators. If the RM ANOVA shows a significant
result (p < 0.05) then you can carry out post hoc tests. A significant RM ANOVA tells
you that there is a difference caused by the treatment but it does not tell you whether it
is between 50% and 90% or 50% and 80%, or between 90% and 80%. Therefore, we
need to carryout the post hoc tests. As our hypothesis states that the 50% condition will
be slower than the other two conditions, we are not interested in comparing the 80%
and 90% conditions. Therefore,we need only to carryout paired t-tests between the
50% and 90% conditions, and 50% and 80% conditions. However, because we are car-
rying out multiple t-tests we need to add the Bonferroni correction factor. This means
that, for a difference to be significant, it needs to show a probability of p < 0.025. If you
can not carry out a RM ANOVA, simply do the t-tests with Bonferroni corrections.
However, note that one really should not do this unless the RM ANOVA has been tested
and is significant.
Discussion
Was the mean reaction time for the 50% condition significantly slower than for the 90%
and 80% conditions?
Which theories provide explanations for such results?
Having completed the task yourself, which of the theories do you think provides the
better rationale?
Do you think that there might be other explanations for these findings rather than those
put forward by Alain and Proteau (1980) and Dillon et al. (1989)?
How do these results fit in with past research?

References
Alain, C. and Proteau, L. (1980). Decision making in sport. In Nadeau, C. H., Halliwell, W. R.,
Newell, K. M. and Roberts, G. C. (Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport – 1979. Human
Kinetics: Champaign, IL, pp. 465–477.
Dillon, J. M., Crassini, B. and Abernethy, B. (1989). Stimulus uncertainty and response time in a
simulated racquet-sport task. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 17: 115–132.

Suggested readings
The above plus
Miller, J. and Anbar, R. (1981). Expectancy and frequency-effects on perceptual and motor
systems in choice reaction-time. Memory and Cognition, 9: 631–641.
Experiment 5: Implicit
Learning and Event
Anticipation

Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine whether we can implicitly or sub-consciously
learn to anticipate an event. This experiment could also be used with regard to Chapter 8,
Learning I: types, theories, styles and measurement.

Method A
Apparatus
Two 30 cm (12 inch) rulers or similar.

Organization
The students need to be divided into threes, one experimenter and two participants,
numbered one and two. It is important that the participants do not know what the
design of the experiment is before taking part.

Procedure
The participant places the thumb and index finger, of their preferred hand, either side of
one of the rulers, at the zero mark. They place the thumb and index finger of their
non-preferred hand either side of the other ruler, also at the zero mark. The participant
is told that they have to catch whichever ruler is let fall, as quickly as possible. They are
given a pre-test of 20 trials. The experimenter follows a set pattern (this needs to be
provided for the experimenter and should be in the sequence of Left, Left, Right, Right

Acquisition and Performance of Sports Skills, Second Edition. Terry McMorris.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion website: [Link]/go/mcmorris/acquisitionsportsskills
repeated) of release of the rulers. Vary the time of the foreperiods (time between saying
‘ready’ and actually dropping the ruler). The distance from zero that the participant
catches the ruler measures the reaction. Following this, number one participants undertake
the task with random selection of which ruler is let fall. Number two students follow the
set pattern, used in the pre-test, repeatedly. They have 100 trials in blocks of 20, with
the experimenter alternating between that two participants. Participants then repeat the
pre-test using the same set pattern. The dependent variable is the mean distance.

Method B
Apparatus
Four choice reaction timer.

Organization
The students need to be divided into threes, one experimenter and two participants,
numbered one and two. It is important that the participants do not know what the
design of the experiment is before taking part.

Procedure
The participant places the first two fingers of each hand on one of the response buttons. The
participant is told that they have to press the button below whichever light is illuminated
as quickly possible. They are given a pre-test of 20 trials. The experimenter follows a set
pattern (this needs to be provided for the experimenter and should be in sequence, e.g.,
Far Left, Second Right, Far Right, Second Left, repeated) of illumination of the lights.
Vary the time of the foreperiods. Following this, number one students undertake the task
with random selection of which light is illuminated. Number two students follow the set
pattern, used in the pre-test, repeatedly. They have 100 trials in blocks of 20, with the
experimenter alternating between that two students. Participants then repeat the initial
test using the same set pattern. The dependent variable is the mean time.

Results
Calculate the mean times for each participant on the pre-test and post-test. Calculate the
difference from pre- to post-test for each participant separately. This is called the delta
(Δ) score and can be negative or positive. Remember that a negative score mans that
they got faster. Enter the Δ score onto a Master sheet and carry our an independent t-test
between the two groups, the number one and number two participants. The number ones
should be classed as the control group and the number twos as the experimental group.

Alternative statistics
A 2-way (group × time) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on
pre- to post-test could be carried out. This will allow for examination of the pre- to post-
test within group results, i.e., did either group improve significantly from pre- to post-test.
To use 2-way ANOVA, mean times for each person in each test will need to be entered
into the analysis rather than Δ scores. However, if there are significant pre-test between
group differences, the Δ method will need to be used.

Discussion
Were the Δ scores for the experimental group significantly better than for the control
group?
Did the experimental group show an improvement from pre- to post-test?
Were any of the partipcants aware during practice that they were following a set order?
Do you think that perceptual anticipation is learned subconsciously in sport?
How do these results fit in with past research and theory?

Suggested readings
Dicks, M., Button, C. and Davids, K. (2010a). Examination of gaze behaviors under in situ and
video simulation task constraints reveals differences in information pickup for perception and
action. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 72: 706–720.
Dicks, M., Davids, K. and Button, C. (2010b). Individual differences in the visual control of inter-
cepting a penalty kick in association football. Human Movement Science, 29: 401–411.
Dicks, M., Uehara, L. and Lima, C. (2011). Deception, individual differences and penalty kicks:
Implications for goalkeeping in Association football. International Journal of Sports Science
and Coaching, 6: 515–521.
Experiment 6: Peripheral
Vision and Motor Control

Introduction
Vision is the most important of the senses and plays a major role in motor control. The
central portion of the eye, the fovea, is rich in nerve receptors, which allows it to extract
detail from an object. As such its main role is to identify objects, although it does play a
part in motor control. The range of foveal or central vision is generally regarded as being
between 2° and 5°. The vision outside of this range is referred to as peripheral vision.
The receptors, here, are less dense and images are less distinct than those found in foveal
vision. Peripheral vision provides us with information about our position with reference
to the floor, the roof or sky, walls or trees and buildings and also the position of our
limbs. While carryout a motor act, such as shooting at basket in basketball, knowledge
of where our arms are will aid performance. Therefore, in this experiment, we compare
shooting at basket with full vision to that when peripheral vision is blocked.

Method
Apparatus
Basketball hoop and backboard, basketball, swimming goggles. Black out the swimming
goggles with the exception of a 0.5 to 1 cm diameter circle in the middle of the goggles.

Test
Participants shoot 40 balls at the hoop, 20 with normal vision and 20 wearing the goggles.
Counterbalance the order of the conditions. Three points are given for a swish, two if the
ball hits the rim or backboard before going through the hoop, one if it hits the rim and
does not go through the hoop. The dependent variables is the total number of points.

Acquisition and Performance of Sports Skills, Second Edition. Terry McMorris.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion website: [Link]/go/mcmorris/acquisitionsportsskills
Results
Scores on the full vision and foveal vision only (wearing the goggles) conditions are
compared by a paired t-test.

Discussion
Was the full vision score significantly better than the foveal only?
What was the problem when shooting without peripheral vision?
Did anyone try to use a strategy to overcome the problem? If so, how successful was it?
How do these results fit in with past research and theory?

Suggested readings
Assaiante, C. and Amblard, B. (1992). Peripheral vision and age-related differences in dynamic
balance. Human Movement Science, 11: 533–548.
Nougier, V., Bard, C., Fleury, M. and Teasdale, N. (1998). Control of central and peripheral vision
to the regulation of stance: developmental aspects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
68: 202–215.
Tomomitsu, M. S., Alonso, A. C., Morimoto, E., Bobbio, T. G. and Greve, J. M. (2013). Static and
dynamic postural control in low-vision and normal-vision adults. Clinics, 68: 517–521.
Experiment 7: Short-term
Motor Memory: Are
Locations Better
Remembered than
Distances?

Introduction
It is generally thought that, in short-term motor memory (STMM) situations, locations
are retained better than distances. Therefore, in this experiment we compare STMM for
distance with that for location.

Method
Apparatus
Pencil, paper (A3), ruler and blindfold. If you have access to commercially bought
curtain rail type apparatus that is easier to use.

Procedure
Draw a line from the top of the A3 paper to the bottom (it is best to have a wide line
~5 cm), then turn the paper on its side. Blindfold the participant. Place the index finger
of the participant’s preferred hand somewhere along the line. In condition one, guide the
participant’s finger along the line to a point of your choosing (mark this point in pencil).
Place the participant’s finger on the line but at a different starting point. Tell them to
move along the line to the location at which you finished. Measure the distance from
where the participant stops and the actual location. Repeat this 10 times. In condition
two, move the participant’s finger along the line to a chosen point and measure the

Acquisition and Performance of Sports Skills, Second Edition. Terry McMorris.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion website: [Link]/go/mcmorris/acquisitionsportsskills
actual distance moved. Then place their finger at a different starting point and ask them
to move the same distance. Measure this and calculate the difference between it and the
actual distance moved originally. Repeat 10 times. Ignore plus and minus signs, and
calculate the mean error for each condition for your participant. Place this on a Master
sheet and calculate the group means for locational and distance errors.

Results
Compare class scores using a paired samples t-test.

Discussion
Were locations remembered better than distances?
Did any participants use strategies such as counting during the guided movement?
Did any participants use mental rehearsal?
How do these results fit in with past research and theory?
How relevant do you think this experiment is to memorizing sports skills?

Suggested readings
Bizzi, E. Accornero, N., Chapplel, W. and Hogan, N. (1984). Posture control and trajectory formation
during arm movement. Journal of Neuroscience, 4: 2738–2744.
Corlett, J. T. and Dickinson, J. (1983). The effect of distance and location cues on linear arm
positioning by children. Journal of Psychology, 113: 47–51.
Imanaka, K. (1989). Effect of starting position on reproduction of movement – further evidence
of interference between location and distance information. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68:
423–434.
Experiment 8: Performance
Curves: Effect of Task
Difficulty

Introduction
Learning is often measured using performance curves. Performance of the learner is
plotted over a number of trials and is shown graphically but the curve is smoothed out.
There are four common types of curve that have been found by researchers, negatively
accelerated curves, there is an early improvement but then performance tapers off
somewhat; positively accelerated curves, there is an overall general improvement which
is slow at first and then accelerates; linear improvement; and ogive or S-shaped curves.
The actual nature of the curves is thought to depend on task difficulty but is also affected
by individual differences in abilities and experience. In this experiment, we compare the
learning of a comparatively simple skill and a more difficult one. This is a case study
because we only examine the performance of one participant.

Method
Organization
Divide the class into twos. Designate one person to be the experimenter and one the
participant. In this example, I am using two soccer tasks, one simple and one difficult.
You can choose two very different tasks from any activity but be sure that you have
some way of measuring performance.

Procedure
The simple task is a soccer passing task. The partipcant stands 7.6 m from a target (30 cm
wide), marked on a gymnastics bench. The participant has to kick the ball at the target.
They score five if they hit the target and 4, 3 or 2 for the areas either side of the target

Acquisition and Performance of Sports Skills, Second Edition. Terry McMorris.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion website: [Link]/go/mcmorris/acquisitionsportsskills
(see Appendix 8A). They have 40 trials. Plot a graph of performance. The difficult task
is to juggle the ball in the air, not allowing it to fall to the ground. Count how many
touches the participant has before the ball hits the ground. They have 40 trials. Plot a
graph of performance. If you have good soccer players make them carryout the task
using their non-preferred foot only.

Results
Plot the graphs and smooth out the curves.

Discussion
What kind of graphs did you get?
Were they as expected?
Why do you think they show these kinds of curves?
How do they compare to other people in the class?
How did individual differences (e.g. past experience) affect the curves?
How do these results fit in with past research and theory?

Suggested reading
I was not able to find any suitable readings for this topic.
Appendix 8A

30 cm 30 cm 30 cm 30 cm 30 cm 30 cm 30 cm

2 3 4 5 4 3 2

7.6 m

Starting point

Acquisition and Performance of Sports Skills, Second Edition. Terry McMorris.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion website: [Link]/go/mcmorris/acquisitionsportsskills
Experiment 9: Focus
of Attention and Learning
a Skill

Introduction
Focus of attention, during practice, can be external or internal. An external focus is one
which is involved with outcome, while an internal focus is concerned with the process
of performing. Wulf et al. (2001) claimed that an external focus allows automatic,
implicit control of movement, while an internal focus induces non-automatic, conscious
control. Research comparing external and internal foci have tended to show that the
former is more advantageous (e.g., Shafizadeh et al., 2011). However, some have argued
that an external focus is advantageous to experts, while beginners do better with an
internal focus (e. g., Perkins-Ceccato et al., 2003). In this experiment, we compare the
effects of an external focus, focusing on the basketball hoop, with an internal focus,
concentrating on the movement of the arm, while practising a basketball set-shot using
the non-preferred hand.

Method
Organization
Divide the class into two groups, an external focus group and an internal focus group.

Procedure
Both groups are tested performing a basketball set-shot, with their non-preferred hand,
in a pre-test (20 trials). Three points are given for a swish, two if the ball hits the rim or
backboard before going through the hoop, one if the ball hits the rim but fails to go
through the hoop. The final score is the total number of points. Following this, the

Acquisition and Performance of Sports Skills, Second Edition. Terry McMorris.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion website: [Link]/go/mcmorris/acquisitionsportsskills
external focus group are told to focus on the hoop while practising. The internal group
are told to focus on the feel of their arm movement. Both groups have 40 practice trials,
before undertaking a post-test (20 trials). Following a non-practice period (this can be
as short as 10 mins or as long as one week), the groups undertake a retention test
(20 trials).

Results
Calculate the Δ score from pre-test to post-test and from pre-test to retention test. Using
an independent samples t-test compare the Δ score for the groups from pre- to post-test
and from pre- to retention test.

Discussion
Did the groups differ in their pre- to post-test scores? If so, what is the relevance of this?
Did the groups differ in their pre- to retention test scores? If so, what is the relevance
of this?
Did basketball players in the class show different results to non-basketball players [if
there are sufficient basketball players in the class (≥10), their scores could be compared
to the rest of the group using an independent samples t-test]?
How do these results fit in with past research and theory?

References
Shafizadeh, M., McMorris, T. and Sproule, J. (2011). Effect of different external attention of
focus instruction on learning of golf putting skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 113: 662–670.
Perkins-Ceccato, N., Passmore, S. R. and Lee, T. D. (2003). Effects of focus of attention depend
on golfers’ skill. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21: 593–600.
Wulf, G., Shea, C., and Park, J. (2001) Attention and motor performance: preferences for and
advantages of an external focus. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72: 210–218.
Experiment 10: Moderate
Intensity Exercise and
Performance of a Central
Executive Task

Introduction
Moderate intensity exercise has been shown to facilitate performance of central executive
tasks, particularly those requiring inhibition of prepotent responses (McMorris and
Hale, 2012). In this experiment, we compare the effect of 15 min exercise at 75%
maximum heart rate (HRMAX) on the performance of an inhibition task.

Method A
Apparatus
Table tennis balls (these should include some coloured balls – wipe board markers can
be used to colour the balls), a cylindrical piece of cardboard (~20 cm long), called the
cardboard shoot.

Participants
Divide the class into two groups, the exercise group and the non-exercise group.

Task
The experimenter places 30 balls (20 white and 10 coloured) in a box, hidden from the
participant’s view. The top of the cardboard shoot is hidden from the participant’s view
(use a cloth if necessary). The participant places their preferred hand on a table, ~1.5 m
below the bottom of the shoot and 10 cms to the side. The experimenter gives a warning
signal by saying ‘ready’ before letting one of the balls drop through the shoot (vary the

Acquisition and Performance of Sports Skills, Second Edition. Terry McMorris.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion website: [Link]/go/mcmorris/acquisitionsportsskills
length of this foreperiod). The participant is instructed to try to catch the white balls but
leave the coloured balls alone and not move his/her hand from the table. The experimenter
randomly chooses a ball and continues until the box is empty. For white balls, 2 points are
given for a successful catch, and one if the hand makes contact with the ball but it is dropped.
For the coloured balls, 2 points are given if the hand remains on the table, –1 if the hand
comes off the table and –2 if the ball is caught. The total score is the dependent variable.

Procedure
For the exercise group, calculate 75% HRMAX using the formula 75/100 × 220-age.
Following a 5 mins warm-up at a very low resistance, have the group exercise at 75%
HRMAX for 15 mins on a cycle ergometer. Allow the participant to pedal at their own rate
but alter the resistance accordingly to maintain 75% HRMAX. Immediately following
cessation of the exercise have the person undertake the test. The members of the
non-exercise group sit for 15 mins before taking the test.

Method B
Apparatus
Table tennis balls or tennis balls (these should include some coloured balls – wipe board
markers can be used to colour table tennis balls), table tennis ball firer or tennis ball firer.

Participants
Divide the class into two groups, the exercise group and the non-exercise group.

Task
The experimenter places 30 balls (20 white and 10 coloured) in a box, hidden from the
participant’s view. The top of the ball firer is hidden from the participant’s view (use a
cloth if necessary). Based on the speed at which the the ball firer is set; the participant sits
at a distance which allows her/him to comfortably catch the ball. The participant places
their preferred hand on a table, ~10 cm to the side of them. The experimenter gives a warn-
ing signal by saying ‘ready’ before placing one of the balls into the ball firer (vary the
length of this foreperiod). The participant is instructed to try to catch the white balls but
leave the coloured balls alone and not move his/her hand from the table. The experimenter
randomly chooses a ball and continues until the box is empty. For white balls, 2 points are
given for a successful catch, one if the hand makes contact with the ball but it is dropped.
For the coloured balls, 2 points are given if the hand remains on the table, –1 if the hand
comes off the table and –2 if the ball is caught. The total score is the dependent variable.

Procedure
For the exercise group, calculate 75% HRMAX using the formula 75/100 × 220-age.
Following a 5 mins warm-up at a very low resistance, have the group exercise at 75%
HRMAX for 15 mins on a cycle ergometer. Allow the participant to pedal at their own rate
but alter the resistance accordingly to maintain 75% HRMAX. Immediately following
cessation of the exercise have the person undertake the test. The members of the non-
exercise group sit for 15 mins before taking the test.

Method C
Participants
Divide the class into two groups, the exercise group and the non-exercise group.

Task
Eriksen’s flanker task (Eriksen and Eriksen, 1974).

Procedure
For the exercise group, calculate 75% HRMAX using the formula 75/100 × 220-age.
Following a 5 min warm-up at a very low resistance, have the group exercise at 75%
HRMAX for 15 min on a cycle ergometer. Allow the participant to pedal at their own rate
but alter the resistance accordingly to maintain 75% HRMAX. Immediately following
cessation of the exercise have the person undertake the test. The members of the non-
exercise group sit for 15 min before taking the test.

Results
For methods A and B compare scores using an independent samples t-test. Using the
flanker task, you can compare times between groups for congruent and incongruent
trials separately, using independent samples t-tests, or you can use a group × congruency
analysis of variance, with post hoc t-tests using the Bonferroni correction factor.

Discussion
Did the exercise group do better than the non-exercise group?
If you used the flanker task, were the exercise group better on the incongruent
trials only?
How do these results fit in with past research and theory?
Might results have been different if both groups had have carried out both the pre-and
post-tests?
Is 220 – age a valid measure of HRMAX?

References
Eriksen, B.A. and Eriksen, C.W., 1974. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target
letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16: 143–149.
McMorris, T. and Hale, B. J. (2012). Differential effects of differing intensities of acute exercise
on speed and accuracy of cognition: a meta-analytical investigation. Brain and Cognition, 80:
338–351.
Suggested readings
Joyce, J., Graydon, J. McMorris, T. and Davranche, K. (2009). The time course effect of moderate
intensity exercise on response execution and response inhibition. Brain and Cognition, 71:
14–19.
McMorris, T., Sproule, J., Turner, A. and Hale, B. J. (2011). Acute, intermediate intensity exercise,
and speed and accuracy in working memory tasks: a meta-analytical comparison of effects.
Physiology & Behavior, 102: 421–428.
Pesce, C., Capranica, L., Tessitore, A. and Figura, F. (2003). Focusing of visual attention under
submaximal physical load. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1:
275–292.