↓ Skip to main content

Key Properties of Expert Movement Systems in Sport

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, December 2012
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 (90th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
234 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
341 Mendeley
Title
Key Properties of Expert Movement Systems in Sport
Published in
Sports Medicine, December 2012
DOI 10.1007/s40279-012-0011-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ludovic Seifert, Chris Button, Keith Davids

Abstract

This paper identifies key properties of expertise in sport predicated on the performer-environment relationship. Weaknesses of traditional approaches to expert performance, which uniquely focus on the performer and the environment separately, are highlighted by an ecological dynamics perspective. Key properties of expert movement systems include 'multi- and meta-stability', 'adaptive variability', 'redundancy', 'degeneracy' and the 'attunement to affordances'. Empirical research on these expert system properties indicates that skill acquisition does not emerge from the internal representation of declarative and procedural knowledge, or the imitation of expert behaviours to linearly reduce a perceived 'gap' separating movements of beginners and a putative expert model. Rather, expert performance corresponds with the ongoing co-adaptation of an individual's behaviours to dynamically changing, interacting constraints, individually perceived and encountered. The functional role of adaptive movement variability is essential to expert performance in many different sports (involving individuals and teams; ball games and outdoor activities; land and aquatic environments). These key properties signify that, in sport performance, although basic movement patterns need to be acquired by developing athletes, there exists no ideal movement template towards which all learners should aspire, since relatively unique functional movement solutions emerge from the interaction of key constraints.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users 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 341 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 329 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 65 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 17%
Student > Bachelor 38 11%
Researcher 31 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 6%
Other 69 20%
Unknown 59 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 165 48%
Psychology 24 7%
Social Sciences 18 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 4%
Engineering 12 4%
Other 41 12%
Unknown 68 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 23 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,617,155
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,504
of 2,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,950
of 283,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#18
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,737 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 51.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 283,316 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.