↓ Skip to main content

Seeing the unseen? Illusory causal filling in FIFA referees, players, and novices

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Seeing the unseen? Illusory causal filling in FIFA referees, players, and novices
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41235-016-0008-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alisa Brockhoff, Markus Huff, Annika Maurer, Frank Papenmeier

Abstract

Humans often falsely report having seen a causal link between two dynamic scenes if the second scene depicts a valid logical consequence of the initial scene. As an example, a video clip shows someone kicking a ball including the ball flying. Even if the video clip omitted the moment of contact (i.e., the causal link), participants falsely report having seen this moment. In the current study, we explored the interplay of cognitive-perceptual expertise and event perception by measuring the false-alarm rates of three groups with differing interests in football (soccer in North America) (novices, players, and FIFA referees). We used the event-completion paradigm with video footage of a real football match, presenting either complete clips or incomplete clips (i.e., with the contact moment omitted). Either a causally linked scene or an incoherent scene followed a cut in the incomplete videos. Causally linked scenes induced false recognitions in all three groups: although the ball contact moment was not presented, participants indicated that they had seen the contact as frequently when it was absent as in the complete condition. In a second experiment, we asked the novices to detect the ball contact moment when it was either visible or not and when it was either followed by a causally or non-causally linked scene. Here, instead of presenting pictures of the clip, the participants were give a two-alternative forced-choice task: "Yes, contact was visible", or "No, contact was not visible". The results of Experiment 1 indicate that conceptual interpretations of simple events are independent of expertise: there were no top-down effects on perception. Participants in Experiment 2 detected the ball contact moment significantly more often correctly in the non-causal than in the causal conditions, indicating that the effect observed in Experiment 1 was not due to a possibly influential design (e.g., inducing a false memory for the presented pictures). The theoretical as well as the practical implications are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 25%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 22%
Sports and Recreations 6 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Mathematics 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 6 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 21 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,181,171
of 25,380,192 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#67
of 365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,243
of 328,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,380,192 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 328,766 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 63% of its contemporaries.