Shared Understanding and Coordination in Team Sports
Contribution of Viewpoints Changes and Shared Information Displays for Team
Situation Awareness Training
Gilles Kermarrec, Yohann Cardin and Cyril Bossard
Research Center for Education, Learning and Didactics, UEB University, Brest, France
European Center for Virtual Reality, Plouzané, France
Keywords: Shared Understanding, Team Situation Awareness, Team Sports, Sharing; Training, Virtual Reality.
Abstract: The paper aims at examining the interest of viewpoints changes and shared information displays for
promoting shared understanding and decision-making coordination in team sports. The role of technological
device such as virtual reality and video-cued training are examined. The paper starts with a description of
major features in shared understanding elicited in sport psychology, and then focuses on review and choices
concerning the use of virtual reality (VR). Finally, an exploratory study in soccer is presented, supported the
idea that, using two properties of VR (viewpoint changing, and displaying player’s judgments), an
innovative 2-D video-cued training should enhance shared understanding between four defensive players.
First results suggest that such technological device could enhance sharing processes and modify sharedness
(i.e. shared knowledge structure).
1 INTRODUCTION
Over the past three decades research in sport
psychology has focused on the “winning factors”
such as decision-making in order to develop training
effectiveness. Some of these studies have been
conducted in real-world setting, that is one of the
Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM) paradigm’s
objectives. Recognition-Primed Decision and
Situation Awareness, applied to military or
aeronautics research, are well-known model of
decision-making in complex and dynamic
environments (Endsley, 1995; Klein, 2008). Most
sports situations can be characterized as dynamic
and uncertain. Athletes have to perform in complex
environments, wherein they have to assess
situations, cope with time pressure and emotions, so
that they used to make optimal adjustments or
intuitive decision (e.g., Bossard et al., 2011;
Kermarrec and Bossard, 2014).
The growth of interest in team games suggest
that the premises of NDM are now stimulating
research and application that cover a set of cognitive
processes such as Team Situation Awareness (TSA),
Shared Understanding (SU), and thus decision-
making coordination in team games. Whereas the
study of TSA and SU has received a good deal of
attention as performance factors, relatively little is
known about team training (see Salas, Nichols, and
Driskell, 2007 and Salas et al., 2008 for recent meta-
analyses), particularly in a team games setting. In
work context, previous studies on TSA lead
researchers to make recommendations for employing
effective team-based practices in various applied
settings (aeronautic, medical care, military
operations). Programs for enhancing TSA have
been developed, implemented and evaluated. Some
of them promote simulation for training. Virtual
Environment (VE) technology aims at giving the
user the sense of being "in" the environment. VE
should have the potential to improve simulation-
based training for many settings, especially when
SU is not "given", but dynamic and emergent from
each partner’s course of action. One of the main
innovations for acquiring common knowledge
should be in the development of participatory
simulations that highlight the coupling between a
user and the computer system. This coupling
between individual and environment is also one of
the theoretical principles of Naturalistic Decision
Making paradigm (Klein, 2008), derived from the
ergonomic psychology, and which allows the study
and the growth of SU and TSA in dynamic situation.
The purposes of this contribution are to examine
89
Kermarrec G., Cardin Y. and Bossard C..
Shared Understanding and Coordination in Team Sports - Contribution of Viewpoints Changes and Shared Information Displays for Team Situation
Awareness Training.
DOI: 10.5220/0005076300890096
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on Sports Sciences Research and Technology Support (icSPORTS-2014), pages 89-96
ISBN: 978-989-758-057-4
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
current research on the role of TSA and SU in
teams’ performance and discuss potential application
of using technological devices to enhance training in
team games. The paper is organized in three
sections: (a) a description of major features in TSA
conducting in principles for coordination training,
(b) choices about technological devices such as
Virtual Reality in a sports setting, and (c) a
presentation of an exploratory qualitative study on
the contribution of a 2-D video-cued training in
soccer.
2 SHARED UNDERSTANDING
AND COORDINATION IN
TEAM GAMES
2.1 Team Performances and Shared
Understanding
Eccles and Tenenbaum (2004, 2007) argued that
team performance requires a high degree of
coordination and that coordination arises from
shared understanding. Thus, research on team
performances has shown the interest of two sources
of shared understanding: shared knowledge and
shared context.
2.1.1 Shared Mental Models and Sharedness
Most studies on team performance have focused on
shared knowledge. They tried to elicit “what is
shared” and described Shared Mental Models, i.e. a
stabilized structure of knowledge, ready to be used
before the team members have to make decision and
to coordinate themselves (Reimer, Park and Hinsz,
2006).
Two types of shared knowledge have been
identified: (a) knowledge about the task to be
accomplished; (b) knowledge about the organisation
of the teamwork (Cannon-Bowers and Bowers,
2006; Lim and Klein, 2006; Mathieu et al., 2000).
Shared Mental Models (SMM) have been
extensively studied in various domains. Researchers
used experimental studies and quantitative measures
of sharedness. They have demonstrated the role of
SMM in team performance.
2.1.2 Team Situation Awareness and
Sharing
However, in dynamic (i.e. complex and
indeterminate) situations like most team games
interactions, shared understanding cannot be reduced
to shared knowledge constructed before the course
of action. Team members probably have to share
perceptions, judgements, expectations for the on-
going situation (Poizat, Bourbousson, Saury and
Sève, 2009). Considering that what is shared is
“contextual” (Salembier and Zouinar, 2004),
researchers have developed conceptual and
methodological frameworks for describing and
assessing the dynamic of shared understanding. For
example, with the Team Situation Awareness
framework, the notion of situation awareness
(Endsley, 1995) was extended to study coordination
in teams.
Endsley (1995) defined Situation Awareness as
the perception of the elements in the context, the
understanding of their meaning, and the projection
of their role in the near future. In a team games
setting, the players should take in account these
elements over the course of their interactions and
probably share some of them to be coordinated.
Over the past few years, Team Situation Awareness
(TSA) has emerged as a major concept in research
dedicated to study coordination among members of
the same team (e.g., Cooke et al., 2007; Cooke,
Stout, and Salas, 2001; Fiore and Salas, 2006). TSA
cannot be reduced to the sum of each individual’s
awareness, but either cannot be elicited without
taking in account each individual point of view.
Cooke and Gorman (2006) indicated that the
processes leading to share understanding might be
more important than the outcome of shared
knowledge. To describe these processes, the notion
of sharing may be sometimes preferable to the
notion of sharedness (Bourbousson et al., 2011).
Sharing refers to when and how cognitive contents
are shared. To study sharing in teams, using TSA
framework, both of quantitative and qualitative
methods were employed during the activity of a
team operating in its naturalistic environment. TSA
was assessed with a particular focus on the forms of
sharing that appeared during real-time activity and
on the sharing processes.
2.2 Team Situation Awareness
Performance in a Team Sports
Setting
2.2.1 Team Sports, Sharedness and
Sharing
Despite several researchers have called for empirical
studies in a team sports setting (Eccles and
Tenenbaum 2004, 2007; Fiore and Salas, 2006), the
icSPORTS2014-InternationalCongressonSportSciencesResearchandTechnologySupport
90
investigation of SU and TSA in team sports has been
neglected. Few studies were conducted in a
naturalistic setting.
Bourbousson et al. (2011) studied the sharedness
of knowledge within a basketball team (nine players)
and how it changes during an official match. The
results elicited types of change in shared knowledge
and the heterogeneous and dynamic nature of
sharedness within the team.
One of our recent studies in Handball
(Dekeukelaere et al., 2013) was conducted on the
TSA perspective. Behavioural data from six elite
players during nine selected offensive phases were
recorded and supplemented by verbal data collected
during self-confrontation interviews after the game.
Data were analysed in five stages: (1) generate
offensive phases chronologies, (2) encode and
examine players’ situation awareness during each
phase, (3) identify shared content, (4) analyse
processes of sharing, (5) analyse forms of sharing.
First, the results showed that the athletes alternated
between two main modes of shared understanding.
In some cases, a pre-established plan was followed-
up, based on “sharedness” (e.g. the routines or
tactics that were reinforced during training). Most
of the time, these shared content have to be adjusted
at the end of the course of action. In other cases,
performances needed a real-time adaptation to the
context of action. “Context sharing” during the
course of action were based on various forms of
sharing and on many sharing processes. Although
the similarity mode is usually reported to be most
efficient for teams, in this study, the
complementarity mode is efficient when team
members have to coordinate themselves based on
pre-established sharedness (when the attackers took
time to prepare the offensive sequence). When the
coordination seemed to be context-dependant
(during counter-attacks), the similarity of local
sharing (only between two or three players) was
efficient.
Focusing on sharing as a process, Bourbousson
et al. (2010) investigated the cognitive coordination
modes between teammates showed that shared
understanding was constructed essentially from
chains of local coordination. The results suggested
that local sharing seemed to be sufficient to ensure
coordinated collective activity.
In few studies (Dekeukelaere and Kermarrec,
2013; Poizat et al., 2009), the analysis and
comparison of the team members’ activity in
situations revealed processes that regulated sharing
such as inquiry or surveying, verifying or
monitoring, displaying, masking or resisting.
These studies elicited the alternative role of
sharedness (as a “product”) and sharing (as a
“process”) in team performances.
2.2.2 Team Training Strategies:
Implications for Training in a Team
Sports Setting
The underlying assumption is that teams can be led
to perform better and more effectively when the
team members participate in a training intervention.
Several recent reviews have delineated two
orientations for team training strategies (Salas,
Nichols, and Driskell, 2007; Salas et al., 2008): task
work vs team work.
In the SMM perspective, team training strategies
are based on “task work” in order to develop specific
competencies for each teammate and acquire
common knowledge about “what and who”
organizing the task. Thus, shared understanding in a
team games setting should be based on the
similarities and the complementarity of the
knowledge the players acquired over the course of
years of competition and over training (i.e.
sharedness as a product of experiences). In a sports
setting, most of training strategies have been used to
increase knowledge sharedness; they consisted
essentially in pre-briefing, post-briefing and cross
training (Cannon-Bowers and Bowers 2006).
Therefore, considering that shared understanding
is rarely completely pre-established before team
performance, recent studies suggested that training
methods have to develop further in the direction of
team adaptiveness (Bourbousson et al. 2011;
Dekeukelaere et al., 2013, 2014). Considering that
team performances are based on the dynamic of
TSA, team-training strategies should target “team
work”. Teamwork may include inter-individual
processes such as mutual performance monitoring,
mutual surveying, or intention displaying. Team
coordination and adaptation training should be based
on context sharing (i.e. sharing as a process).
In accordance with this second type of team-
training strategies (i.e. strategies based on
teamwork), we made the assumption that
technological devices such as Virtual Reality (VR)
simulations could be salient for shared
understanding and coordination training.
3 VR AND TRAINING IN A
SPORTS SETTING
New technologies became an essential asset for
SharedUnderstandingandCoordinationinTeamSports-ContributionofViewpointsChangesandSharedInformation
DisplaysforTeamSituationAwarenessTraining
91
researchers in sport science and have recently led
them to question the value of simulation for research
and training in high-level sport (Bossard, Kermarrec,
Bénard, De Loor and Tisseau, 2009a). In this
perspective, virtual reality is a scientific and
technical field which exploits computing and
behavioural interfaces to simulate a virtual world. In
this world, behaviour of entities are implemented in
3D real-time interaction among themselves and with
one or several users in immersion. In the context of
high performance sport, especially team games, the
protagonists are often subjected to many pressures
(e.g, time-pressure) that have a strong influence on
their co-adaptation in the game, so that simulation
and VR should be a great perspective for innovative
training.
3.1 Four Types of Simulators
Several types of simulations have emerged and have
thus been used in various studies involving physical
activity and sports. In this context, four types of
simulators could be distinguished: simulators for
studying or practicing a technical gesture, for
studying physiological responses to physical
activity, for analysing strategies in sports situations,
and for immersing the user in sport environments
(for a review see Bossard et al., 2009b; Pasco,
2013).
First, physical simulators have been designed for
studying technical movements and for motor skill
training. The aim was to create a more believable
environment with regards to senses, mainly relating
to sight, balance, touch and sound. The physical
interaction between the user and the machine is an
essential part of believability. For exemple, Bideau
et al. (2003) suggest immersing handball
goalkeepers by confronting them with virtual
players.
Secondly, in recent years, VR technology has
been viewed as an opportunity to study and improve
physiological responses to exercise in a safe,
controlled, and motivational environment. Heart
rate, ventilation rate, and sweating, are important
physiological indicators for the impact of
exercise/physical activity on the human body.
Standards based on these indicators, especially on
heart rate, are used as platforms on which the effect
of physical activity is evaluated for adults and
children alike. For example, Chuang, et al. (2003)
examined the influence of VR technology on
physiological responses of the cardiovascular
systems during incremental exercise testing.
Thirdly, the advantage of virtual reality
simulations is that it is possible to conduct risk-free
experiments and to be able to analyse the
consequences of choices made by the players in
different situations. In order to generate a believable
environment, this tool uses image processing and
synthesis. For example, Ziane (2004) suggests that
basketball coaches could be trained to analyse their
team’s actions.
Fourth, when the aim is to immerse the human
user within a believable virtual environment,
simulators attempt to produce virtual agents with a
certain degree of autonomy. Video games can
therefore provide very effective simulations. The
TeamVision system from Konami, for example, is
an adaptive artificially intelligent system for Pro
Evolution Soccer 2008. The creators of the game
FIFA 2008 referred to a system evaluating up to
thirty action options at any given time as an
opportunity map. In the current state of affairs, the
achieved behaviours are realistic, as they are due to
the relative autonomy of the virtual players. The
choices are made by each agent independently of a
metamodel.
3.2 Simulation and Context Sharing
Combining the two last types of simulation listed
above, virtual environment could be designed in
order to make it a participatory simulator allowing
reproducing collaborative and dynamic situations.
Those situations would led the users to make
decisions and to coordinate their decisions to be
more efficient. For example, the CoPeFoot simulator
is a soccer simulator, in which the design model of
virtual agents is the result of an analytical work on
the activities of real football players during a
practice (Bossard et al., 2011). A VR system, such
as the CopeFoot, can be helpful in order to facilitate
shared understanding. Players will become
immerged in this environment by controlling an
avatar. They collaborate with other players (via their
avatars) in creating attack scenarios and use them
repeatedly to find out those most effective. During
the process, they experienced decision-making and
co-constructed effective tactics. Because they shared
the same virtual soccer field and attempted to solve
same tactical problems, players could develop a
dynamical sharing of the situation. In the next
sections, two properties of VR simulation will
presented in relationship with our objective, the
training of sharing and dynamic coordination in
team.
3.2.1 Sharing and Viewpoints Changes
In sport sciences, number of studies has looked into
icSPORTS2014-InternationalCongressonSportSciencesResearchandTechnologySupport
92
the relationship between the viewpoint adopted by
expert players and cognitive processes. Some of
these simulations used virtual reality technology
(Cardin et al., 2013) or combined video sequences
and VR properties (Petit and Ripoll, 2008). Cardin et
al. (2013) argued that changes of viewpoint could
lead players to simulate other players‘ judgment.
They experimented an immersive and an external
viewpoint in the CoPeFoot simulator (see figures 1
and 2).
Figure 1: Immersive Viewpoint.
Figure 2: External Viewpoint.
Considering this property of VR, we hypothesized
that if a soccer player “could take place in his
teammates’ dynamic environment”, he should assess
the situation from a new subjective point of view,
and reinforce or adjust his first judgment. This usual
property in VR environments should be useful for
sharing and shared understanding.
3.2.2 Sharing Context and Displaying Team
Members’ Focus
Considering the interest of VR simulation for
coordination training, the CoPeFoot simulator was
extended to ExpeCoPeFoot, designed in order to
display the information the users take in account
when interacting with the environment (Bossard et
al., 2011). The first stage consisted in playing a
game. Then, using a replay stage, each participant in
the simulation can select on the screen the
information he focused on when he made his own
choice. For instance on figure 3, a player standing in
the right corner was in possession of the ball. He
could see three players and particularly paid
attention in two of them because many informations
were displayed. He indicated their color (e.g. one of
his teammenbers in red on the right side), their speed
and their direction. In this way, each team member
could share with others the meaningful contextual
elements of his own situation awareness.
Figure 3: Displaying Meaningful Information in Context.
Future development could promote the sharing of
the whole judgement in the situation, and the
decisions each player made. Therefore, VR
technology needs long-time design processes, so that
we considered that 2-D or 3-D video, mixed with
augmented reality (i.e., viewpoints changes and
sharing information displays) should be a useful
training tool in a team sports setting.
4 PROMOTING SHARING IN A
TEAM SPORTS SETTING: AN
EXPLORATORY STUDY
In previous studies (De Keukelaere et al., 2013a,
2013b, 2014) TSA was studied and defined as the
articulation of each player judgment during a course
of action. Promoting SU through instruction and
traditional training method can be difficult. Before
SharedUnderstandingandCoordinationinTeamSports-ContributionofViewpointsChangesandSharedInformation
DisplaysforTeamSituationAwarenessTraining
93
engaging in a dynamic setting, it is difficult for
players to know exactly what they will have to do
and what decision they will have to make. The role
of each player (the tactic content of sharedness) may
not be entirely determined before the game, so that
players should be trained in adjusting their
judgments to others, and in being receptive to
others’ point of view. In this perspective, the
training of sharing in the on-going course of action
is a challenge for trainers, researchers and for new
technology designers.
4.1 An Innovative
Video-Cued Training
One possibility to train sharing process is to provide
players information about their teammates judgment.
A technological device can help this process by
providing viewpoints changes and shared
information displayed in either a 2-D or a 3-D
environment. As players recall their experience in
relation to other teammates judgments, they can see,
feel, and, hopefully, assess the situation as a
collaborative situation. During training session,
viewpoints changes modified spatiotemporal
configurations and stimulated the teammates’
perception of environment. In conclusion of an
empirical study in a handball setting, Dekeukelaere
et al. (2013) suggested that sharing information
displays could be designed using video and video-
cued recall interviews. After the interviews, each
player’s successive judgments could be labelled on a
video just above the players’ positions (see figure 4).
Such a sharing information display should be used
for collective debriefing session training and should
give the players the habit to pay attention in
teammates’ situation awareness or in opponents’
judgments.
Figure 4: Example of a Sharing Information Display in
Handball.
4.2 Promoting sharing between
Defensive Soccer Players
Such a technological device was used with four
young male football players from an elite football
school. Their mean age was 12.5 years (SD = 1.2
years). They had played on this team for several
months. The team used zone defense. It is a tactic
that is used in invasion sports where the players are
made to guard a specific area of the field: all of them
have their own zone to guard. During one month,
training, previous matches, and feedbacks between
players and coaches had developed sharedness about
this tactic. Indeed, in zone defense, if a defender is
under pressure or in a critical situation his
teammates must assist him; because of this, zone
defense requires extensive interactions between the
defensive players. Thus, context sharing and sharing
processes are supposed to help them to coordinate
their decision-making and their actions.
Technological device was used for two weeks
during regular training sessions. Ten 2-D video-cued
training sequences were designed combining
changes of viewpoints (attackers viewpoints,
defenders viewpoints) and sharing context displays
(judgment verbalized by the central defender, or the
right or left back defenders, or the attacker in
possession of the ball). Each sequence was 15
seconds long and was ended by a question: what
decision should you make? The ten sequences were
alternatively organized into individual or collective
presentation. During collective presentation, the four
players could debate, explain their option or show
which information was salient for them.
These collective presentations were videotaped,
and the participants’ verbalizations during these
collective sessions were used as verbal data for
analysis. Complementary, observational data of the
training process as the subjects progressed through
the two weeks were also collected.
Qualitative analysis of the data indicated
that such a team training could contribute to change
coordination mechanisms. First, verbal report
showed that the participants trust in the capabilities
of the system for training. Observational data
showed that when the team played defensive stages,
participants paid more attention into each other:
more communications between defenders were
observed; forms of sharing became less hierarchical
or more symmetric. Verbal data collected during the
collective training sessions showed that shared
knowledge structure has been modified: roles are
more precisely identified, and operations for each of
them are more explicit.
icSPORTS2014-InternationalCongressonSportSciencesResearchandTechnologySupport
94
5 CONCLUSIONS
These results suggested that viewpoints changes and
shared information displays should be considered as
resources for coaches: they could help them to
stimulate complex phenomenon such as sharing and
shared understanding in a team games setting.
Technological devices could be designed for training
coordination in teams, decision-making of players,
coaches or referees. Effectively using VR
technology to promote shared understanding is still
more of an assumption than a reality. VR technology
needs long-time design processes, so that we
considered that 2-D or 3-D video, mixed with VR
properties (viewpoint changes and sharing
information displays) should be a useful training tool
in team games settings.
It seems that the TSA can be used as an effective
theoretical framework to guide the future design,
development, implementation, and evaluate the
impact of technological-based training on team
performances.
REFERENCES
Bideau, B., Kulpa, R., Ménardais, S., Fradet, L., Multon,
F., Delamarche, P. and Arnaldi, B., 2003. Real
Handball Goalkeeper vs. Virtual Handball Thrower.
Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,
12(4), 411-421.
Bossard, C., Kermarrec, G., Bénard, R., De Loor, P. and
Tisseau, J., 2009a. An exploratory evaluation of
virtual football player's believability, In proceedings of
11
th
Virtual Reality International Conference –
VRIC'09 (pp.171-172), Laval, France.
Bossard, C., Kermarrec, G., Bénard, R., De Loor, P., and
Tisseau, J., 2009b. Virtual Reality for Research and
Training in Sport: an Illustration with CoPeFoot
(Chap. 16), In C.H. Chang (Ed), Handbook of Sports
Psychology (pp. 391-402), New York: Nova Science
Publishers, Inc. ISBN: 978-1-60741-256-4.
Bossard, C., Kermarrec, G., De Keukelaere, C., Pasco, D.,
and Tisseau, J., 2011. Analyser l’activité décisionnelle
de joueurs de football en situation d’entraînement pour
développer un modèle de joueur virtuel [Analyze
soccer players decision making during training to
develop a virtual soccer player model]. eJRIEPS, 23,
124–151.
Bourbousson, J., Poizat, G., Saury, J., Sève, C. (2010).
Team coordination in basketball: description of the
cognitive connections between teammates. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 150-166.
Bourbousson, J., Poizat, G., Saury, J., Sève, C., 2011.
Description of dynamic shared knowledge: an
exploratory study during a competitive sports
interaction. Ergonomics, 54, 120-138.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., and Bowers, C., 2006. Applying
work team results to sports teams: Opportunities and
cautions. International Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 4, 363-369.
Cardin, Y., Bossard, C., Buche, C., and Kermarrec, G.,
2013. Inves- tigate naturalistic decision making of
football players in virtual environment: Influence of
viewpoints in recognition. In Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Naturalistic Decision
Making (pp. 109-117). Marseille, France: Arpege.
Chuang, T. W., Chen, C. H., Chang, H. A., Lee, H. C.,
Chou, C. L., Doong, J. L., 2003. Virtual reality serves
as a support technology in cardiopulmonary exercise
testing. Presence, 12, 326–331. doi: 10.1162/
105474603765879567
Cooke, N. J., Stout, R., and Salas, E., 2001. A knowledge
elicitation approach to the measurement of team
situation awareness. New trends in cooperative
activities: Understanding system dynamics in complex
environments, 114–139.
Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., and Winner, J., 2007. Team
cognition. In F. Durso, R. Nickerson, S. Dumais, S.
Lewandowsky and T. Perfect (Eds.), Handbook of
applied cognition (pp. 239-268). Wiley (2
nd
Edition).
Cooke, N. J., and Gorman, J. C., 2006. Assessment of
team cognition. In P. Karwowski (Ed.), International
encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors (pp.
270-275). London: Taylor and Francis Ltd.
De Keukelaere, C., Kermarrec, G., Bossard, C., and De
Loor P., 2014. Évolution et partage du sentiment de
performance collective au cours d'un match de
handball. @ctivités, 11 (1), 47-64.
De Keukelaere, C., Kermarrec, G., Bossard, C., G., Pasco,
D., and Loor, P., 2013. Formes, contenus et évolution
du partage au sein d’une équipe sportive de haut-
niveau. Le Travail Humain, 76. 227-255.
De Keukelaere, C. and Kermarrec, G., 2013. L’évolution
du partage et artefacts technologiques en théâtre
d’improvisation. Education Permanente, 194, 91-101.
Eccles, D. W., and Tenenbaum, G., 2004. Why an expert
team is more than a team of experts: A social-
cognitive conceptualization of team coordination and
communication in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 26, 542-560.
Eccles, D. W., and Tenenbaum, G., 2007. A social
cognitive perspective on team functioning in sport. In
G. Tenenbaum and R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of
sport psychology (pp. 264-283). New York: Wiley.
Endsley, M.R., 1995. Toward a theory of situation
awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors. The
Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society, 37, 32–64.
Fiore, S. M. and Salas, E., 2006. Team cognition and
expert teams: Developing insights from cross-
disciplinary analysis of exceptional teams.
International Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 4(4), 369–375.
SharedUnderstandingandCoordinationinTeamSports-ContributionofViewpointsChangesandSharedInformation
DisplaysforTeamSituationAwarenessTraining
95
Kermarrec, G., and Bossard, C., 2014. Defensive Soccer
Players Decision-Making: a Naturalistic Study.
Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision
Making, 8(2), 187 - 199. DOI: 10.1177/
1555343414527968.
Klein, G., 2008. Naturalistic Decision Making. Human
Factors, 50(3), 456-460.
Lim, B. C., and Klein, K. J., 2006. Team mental models
and team performance: A field study of the effects of
team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27, 403–418.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E.,
and Cannon-Bowers, J. A., 2000. The influence of
shared mental models on team process and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-
283.
Pasco, D., 2013. The Potential of Using Virtual Reality
Technology in Physical Activity Settings, Quest, 65
(4), 429-441. DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2013.795906
Petit, J-P. and Ripoll, H., 2008. Scene perception and
decision-making in sport simulation: A masked
priming investigation. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 39(1), 1-19.
Poizat, G., Bourbousson, J., Saury, J., and Sève, C., 2009.
Analysis of contextual information sharing during
table tennis matches: An empirical study on
coordination in sports. International Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology. 7, 465-487.
Reimer, T., Park, E. S., and Hinsz, V. B., 2006. Shared
and coordinated cognition in competitive and dynamic
task environments: an information-processing perspe-
ctive for team sports. International Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 4, 376-400.
Salas, E., Nichols, D. R., and Driskell, J. E., 2007. Testing
three team training strategies in intact teams: A meta-
analysis. Small Group Research, 38, 471–488.
Salas, E., Diaz Granados, D., Klein, C., Burke, S., Stagl,
K., Goodwin, G. and Halpin, S.M., 2008. Does team
training improve team performance? A meta-analysis.
Human Factors, 50, 903-933. DOI:10.1518/
001872008X37500
Salembier, P. et Zouinar, M., 2004. Intelligibilité mutuelle
et contexte partagé : Inspirations conceptuelles et
réductions technologiques. @ctivités, 1(2): 64–85.
Sève, C., Bourbousson, J., Poizat, G., and Saury, J., 2009.
Cognition et performance collectives en sport.
Intellectica, 52, 1-25.
Ziane, R., 2004. Contribution à la formation des
entraineurs sportifs, caractérisation et représentation
des actions de jeu : l’exemple du basket-ball. [A
Contribution to Training Sports Coaches, and to
Characterising and Representing Actions from Sports:
The Example of Basketball. (Doctoral Thesis)] Thèse
de doctorat, ENS Cachan.
icSPORTS2014-InternationalCongressonSportSciencesResearchandTechnologySupport
96
