{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017699115044247787, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.37948717948718, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Are Visual Cue Masking and Removal Techniques Equivalent for Studying Perceptual Skills in Sport?

The spatial-occlusion paradigm makes use of two techniques (masking and removing visual cues) to provide information about the anticipatory cues used by viewers. The visual scene resulting from the removal technique appears to be incongruous, but the assumed equivalence of these two techniques is spreading. The present study was designed to address this issue by combining eye-movement recording with the two types of occlusion (removal versus masking) in a tennis serve – return task. Response accuracy and decision onsets were analysed. The results indicated that subjects had longer reaction times under the removal condition, with an identical proportion of correct responses. Also, the removal technique caused the subjects to rely on atypical search patterns. Our findings suggest that, when the removal technique was used, viewers were unable to systematically count on stored memories to help them accomplish the interception task. The persistent failure to question some of the assumptions about the removal technique in applied visual research is highlighted, and suggestions for continued use of the masking technique are advanced.