little research has been conducted to date on brain imaging in athletes. In summary, the
major advantage of neuroscientific techniques over their psychometric counterparts is
that they yield objective data on biological processes which can be recorded while the
athlete is performing his or her skills. Unfortunately, the major drawbacks associated
with the neuroscientific paradigm are cost and practicality.
Experimental approachThe third approach to the measurement of attentional processes in athletes comes from
capacity theory in experimental psychology (see review by Abernethy, 2001). Briefly,
capacity theory (Kahneman, 1973) suggests that attention may be defined operationally in
terms of the interference between two tasks (a primary task and a secondary task) that are
performed simultaneously. To explain this “dual-task paradigm”, if the two tasks can be
performed as well simultaneously as individually, then it may be concluded that at least
one of them was automatic (i.e., demanding minimal attentional resources). However, if
the primary task is performed less well when it is combined with the secondary task, then
both tasks are believed to require attentional resources. Adopting this experimental
approach, the dual-task method of measuring attention requires participants to perform
two tasks over three conditions. In condition one, the person has to perform the primary
task on its own. Likewise, in condition two, s/he must perform the secondary task on its
own. In condition three, however, s/he is required to perform both tasks concurrently.
When the dual-task paradigm is used in sport psychology, the primary task usually
consists of a self-paced or “closed” skill (i.e., one that can be performed without
interference from others such as target-shooting in archery) whereas the secondary task
typically requires the subject to respond to a predetermined probe signal (e.g., an auditory
tone). Following comparison of performance between these three conditions, conclusions
may be drawn about the attentional demands of the primary and secondary tasks. Using
this method, sport psychologists are usually interested in people’s performance in
condition three—the concurrent task situation. In this condition, participants are required
to perform a primary task which is interrupted periodically by the presentation of the
probe stimulus. When this probe is presented, the person has to respond to it as rapidly as
possible. It is assumed that the speed of responding to the probe is related inversely to the
momentary attention devoted to the primary task. Therefore, if a primary task is
cognitively demanding, then a decrement should be evident in secondary task
performance. However, if the performance of the secondary task in the dual-task
condition does not differ significantly from that evident in the relevant control condition,
then it may be assumed that the primary task is relatively effortless (or automatic).
In summary, the dual-task paradigm is an attempt to measure the spare mental
capacity of a person while s/he is engaged in performing some task or mental activity. To
illustrate an early application of this approach, consider a study by Landers, Qi and
Courtet (1985) on rifle-shooting. Briefly, these authors tested the hypothesis that under
conditions of increased arousal, performance on a primary task would improve or be
maintained whereas performance of a secondary task would deteriorate. Here, it is
assumed that when people show deficits in performance of the secondary task, some
attentional narrowing has occurred. Therefore, performance on this secondary task may
serve as an index of an athlete’s peripheral awareness. Based on this logic, Landers et al.
Staying focused in sport: concentration in sport performers 105