↓ Skip to main content

Quiet-eye training for soccer penalty kicks

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Processing, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
246 Mendeley
Title
Quiet-eye training for soccer penalty kicks
Published in
Cognitive Processing, February 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10339-011-0393-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Greg Wood, Mark R. Wilson

Abstract

Anxiety has been shown to disrupt visual attention, visuomotor control and subsequent shot location in soccer penalty kicks. However, optimal visual attention has been trained in other far aiming skills, improving performance and resistance to pressure. We therefore asked a team of ten university soccer players to follow a quiet eye (QE; Vickers 1996) training program, designed to align gaze with aiming intention to optimal scoring zones, over a 7-week period. Performance and gaze parameters were compared to a placebo group (ten players) who received no instruction, but practiced the same number of penalty kicks over the same time frame. Results from a retention test indicated that the QE-trained group had more effective visual attentional control, were significantly more accurate, and had 50% fewer shots saved by the goalkeeper than the placebo group. Both groups then competed in a penalty shootout to explore the influence of anxiety on attentional control and shooting accuracy. Under the pressure of the shootout, the QE-trained group failed to maintain their accuracy advantage, despite maintaining more distal aiming fixations of longer duration. The results therefore provide only partial support for the effectiveness of brief QE training interventions for experienced performers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 246 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Lithuania 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 242 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 18%
Student > Bachelor 38 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 13%
Researcher 15 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 5%
Other 42 17%
Unknown 63 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 82 33%
Psychology 31 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 5%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Neuroscience 9 4%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 70 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,152,179
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Processing
#54
of 335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,296
of 184,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Processing
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 335 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 184,843 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.