↓ Skip to main content

Investigating Team Coordination in Baseball Using a Novel Joint Decision Making Paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Investigating Team Coordination in Baseball Using a Novel Joint Decision Making Paradigm
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00907
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rob Gray, Nancy J. Cooke, Nathan J. McNeese, Jaimie McNabb

Abstract

A novel joint decision making paradigm for assessing team coordination was developed and tested using baseball infielders. Balls launched onto an infield at different trajectories were filmed using four video cameras that were each placed at one of the typical positions of the four infielders. Each participant viewed temporally occluded videos for one of the four positions and were asked to say either "ball" if they would attempt to field it or the name of the bag that they would cover. The evaluation of two experienced coaches was used to assign a group coordination score for each trajectory and group decision times were calculated. Thirty groups of 4 current college baseball players were: (i) teammates (players from same team/view from own position), (ii) non-teammates (players from different teams/view from own position), or (iii) scrambled teammates (players from same team/view not from own position). Teammates performed significantly better (i.e., faster and more coordinated decisions) than the other two groups, whereas scrambled teammates performed significantly better than non-teammates. These findings suggest that team coordination is achieved through both experience with one's teammates' responses to particular events (e.g., a ball hit up the middle) and one's own general action capabilities (e.g., running speed). The sensitivity of our joint decision making paradigm to group makeup provides support for its use as a method for studying team coordination.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 20%
Sports and Recreations 8 16%
Engineering 6 12%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 11 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 22 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,594,342
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,197
of 30,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,601
of 317,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#91
of 599 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 317,326 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 599 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.