Original Article

Perceptual and Motor Skills

0(0) 1–14
How Does Cognitive ! The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
Effort Influence the sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0031512521991405
Tactical Behavior of journals.sagepub.com/home/pms

Soccer Players?

Felippe da S. L. Cardoso1 ,
Tomás Garc
ıa-Calvo2,
Tomas Patrick3, Jos

e Afonso4 and
Israel Teoldo1

Abstract
In the present study, we aimed to investigate the association between soccer players’
cognitive effort and their tactical behavior. We assessed 52 young male soccer play-
ers from a first division Brazilian club, using FUT-SAT to evaluate tactical behavior
efficiency and Mobile Eye Tracking-XG software and a video test protocol to mea-
sure pupillary behavior and cognitive effort. Following data collection, statistical
analyses were performed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test, and linear
regression. We found a high inverse association between cognitive effort and tactical
behavior efficiency; players with less cognitive effort during the task displayed higher
values of tactical behavior efficiency on the field. We concluded that sustaining less
cognitive effort in game situations helped players realize better tactical behavior and
enabled better performance.

Keywords
decision-making, pupillometry, tactical behavior efficiency, evaluation

1
Centre of Research and Studies in Soccer, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil
2
Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain
3
New South Wales Institute of Sport, Sydney, Australia
4
Centre for Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, Faculty of Sport, University of
Porto, Porto, Portugal
Corresponding Author:
Felippe da S. L. Cardoso, N

ucleo de Pesquisa e Estudos em Futebol, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Av.
PH Rolfs, SN—Campus Universitário—Centro, Viçosa, Brazil.
Email: nupef.cardoso@gmail.com
2 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

Introduction
In soccer, many decisions are made under time and space constraints, requiring
players to employ cognitive resources quickly and efficiently in order to main-
tain a high level of performance (Vickers & Williams, 2017). This soccer char-
acteristic requires that players have an appropriate capacity to manage their
cognitive effort (Cardoso et al., 2019). Cognitive effort was defined by Lee et al.
(1994, p. 329) as the “[. . .] mental work involved in decision making.” Fiske and
Taylor (2013) indicated that, in some situations, the level of cognitive effort
required to accomplish some tasks can be very high, exceeding the brain’s capac-
ity to use cognitive and neural resources to solve a specific problem. In such
cases, players may experience problems with their sports performance (van der
Wel & van Steenbergen, 2018; Westbrook & Braver, 2015).
As strong arguments in the literature have supported the possibility of man-
aging cognitive effort (Karatekin, 2004; Shenhav et al., 2013; Westbrook &
Braver, 2015), individuals facing situational problems can decide whether inves-
ting more or less cognitive effort is best (van der Wel & van Steenbergen, 2018;
Westbrook & Braver, 2015). In everyday tasks, with more straightforward
decision-making scenarios, researchers have observed a directly proportional
relationship between the investment of cognitive effort and successful
problem-solving (Botvinick, 2007). In this context, increasing an investment of
cognitive effort has led to a more favorable outcome (Botvinick, 2007; Botvinick
et al., 2001). However, in soccer, due to its dynamic nature and numerous, quick
decision-making demands, sports researchers have suggested that this effort-
performance relationship is inversely proportional, meaning a lower investment
of cognitive effort has seemed advantageous to performers (Cardoso et al.,
2019). However, empirical investigations of this idea in soccer remain limited,
and those few that have addressed this issue were conducted in laboratory
settings. Therefore, a broader investigation of the effects of cognitive effort on
players’ tactical behaviors in an actual game context is needed.
In past research, players who were better able to manage their cognitive
resources by employing higher cognitive effort during critical situations
tended to be more cognitively efficient; and, consequently, they improved
their chances of displaying superior performance (Cardoso et al., 2019;
Klingner et al., 2011). This observation seemed to be related to the ability of
more cognitively efficient players to focus on aspects of play that were more
relevant to performance, such as formulating hypotheses, recognizing patterns
and searching for relevant information during the game (Klingner et al., 2011;
Vickers & Williams, 2017). This assumption was verified in a study by Naito and
Hirose (2014) in which the authors observed that a top-level soccer player with
high technical skills needed to activate the motor regions of the medial wall of
the cortex to a lesser extent during a task in which he was required to move his
feet. Thus, this player, seemed to need to employ less cognitive effort when
Cardoso et al. 3

performing certain motor actions, while committing more cognitive effort to

highly demanding cognitive tasks, such as accurately processing other environ-
mental and contextual game information (Naito & Hirose, 2014). Thus, when
there was a lower demand for cognitive effort to perform a motor action, even if
demands were increased in other tasks of greater importance, there was a better
performance outcome when lower cognitive effort was generated overall. This
higher-performance player was thought to be unlike players who would need a
higher cognitive effort in both motor and tactical behavior.
These findings were also supported by Cardoso et al. (2019) who presented
first-hand evidence of the associations between tactical (declarative and proce-
dural) knowledge and cognitive effort. They found that players with greater
declarative and procedural tactical knowledge required less cognitive effort to
make decisions. In addition, findings from some recent studies suggested a
three-way relationship between game demands, required cognitive effort and
the players’ state of mental fatigue (Cardoso et al., 2019; Kunrath,
Nakamura, et al., 2020; van der Wel & van Steenbergen, 2018). If game
demands are very high and players are not able to manage cognitive effort
appropriately, mental fatigue is more likely, and this, in turn, generates a sig-
nificant performance decrement (Kunrath, Cardoso, et al., 2020). In the context
of these observations and past findings related to cognitive effort, there has been
an intensified search for a deeper understanding of the relationship between
cognitive effort and performance (Naito & Hirose, 2014; van der Wel & van
Steenbergen, 2018; Westbrook & Braver, 2015).
In the specialized literature, several techniques for assessing cognitive effort
have been proposed (Brouwer et al., 2014; Just et al., 2003). Among them,
pupillometry has stood out, because it allows a precise evaluation of important
aspects of real-time information processing at low financial cost (Laeng et al.,
2012). Using pupillary behavior to estimate cognitive effort was first proposed
by Hess and Polt (1964) who observed small changes in pupil diameter in
response to mental activities. Subsequently, Hahnemann and Beatty (1967) dem-
onstrated, in a numerical digit recall task, that pupils progressively dilated as
cognitive effort demands increased. On the other hand, as the stimulus/demand
decreased, the pupils gradually returned to their resting size. Evidence of a
relationship between pupillary behavior and cognitive effort has also been
found in other recent studies (Duchowski et al., 2018; Moran et al., 2016).
Only a few soccer studies have utilized pupillometry to assess cognitive effort
(Cardoso et al., 2019), and their focus was purely on cognitive and/or physio-
logical variables related to cognitive effort (Cap~ao Filipe et al., 2003; Cardoso
et al., 2019). Although we consider the purpose of these studies relevant to this
topic, we believe that the key to further insights in the effort-performance rela-
tionship is to assess how pupil dilation is associated with tactical actions per-
formed by players in actual game situations. The assessment of cognitive effort
in relation to tactical behavior is an interesting way to examine more global
4 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

aspects of the influence of effort on various game components. Observed tactical

behavior reflects the integration of players’ technical, physical, psychological
and cognitive skills (Raab, 2003; Teoldo et al., 2015). Thus, in this study we
aimed to study the association between soccer players’ cognitive effort and tac-
tical behavior, using pupillometry as an indicator of cognitive effort and eye
tracking to measure tactical behavior.

Method
Participants
We recruited 52 male academy soccer players from a Brazilian first division
soccer club as study participants. They averaged 14.89 years of age
(SD ¼ 1.42). As additional inclusion criteria, all players had to be engaged in
training routines with at least five weekly sessions of 90 minutes each, and to
have participated in national and/or international competitions. All players
assessed had accumulated at least 800 hours of deliberate practice in soccer.
We used G*Power 3.1.9.4VR software to estimate minimum sample size following
the procedures described by Faul et al. (2007). An a priori power analysis con-
sidered as sufficient a sample size of 50 players, based on assumptions of 85%
power (1  b), an alpha (a) of 0.05, and a moderate effect size (ES) (d ¼ 0.5)
(Faul et al., 2007).
In order to take part in the research, participants signed an informed consent
form; and, for participants under the age of 18, we procured informed consent
from their legal guardians. All research procedures were conducted in accor-
dance with the norms established by the Resolution 466/2012 of the National
Health Council and with the Declaration of Helsinki for human research. The
project was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (CAAE, N .
01903818.7.0000.5153).

Experimental Procedures
Evaluation of Cognitive Effort. We obtained cognitive effort data through pupillom-
etry, recording pupil size at a sampling rate of 60 times per second (60 Hz) with
the Mobile Eye Tracking-XG (Applied Science Laboratories, Bedford, MA,
USA). The Mobile Eye Tracking software has been used to track research
participants’ central vision and to measure the dynamics of pupillary behavior
through cameras mounted on eye glasses. This equipment works by detecting
the reflection of the pupil and the cornea, determined by examining the reflec-
tion of an infrared light source on the surface of the cornea and displaying a
video image of the eye (Wilson et al., 2009). We processed pupil diameter
measurements using the GazeTraker software which allows pupil size to be
measured and synchronized with the video task. We then registered pupil
Cardoso et al. 5

diameter measurements in Excel for WindowsVR 2016. Data lost due to the sub-
jects’ blinking and head movements were excluded from the analysis. No indi-
viduals or clinical trials were excluded due to excessive data loss. The metrics
provided by this equipment have an error rate of 0.025 per observed data set.
For the experimental protocol, we set up a closed environment, without
external interference, with controlled sound (maximum 13 Db), brightness
(average values were 332 lux, with a variation less than 7 lux during the exper-
imental protocol) and room temperature (24 C). We controlled luminosity var-
iance and limited participants’ head movements. Eye movements were corrected
by the ASL ResultsVR software (Applied Science Laboratories, Bedford, MA,
USA), considering the x and y coordinates and the degree of change in each
measurement. Subsequently, we adjusted the Mobile Eye Tracking – XG and
performed the required 9-point calibration procedure with the participants.

Cognitive Effort Assessment Task. To assess cognitive effort, we had participants

perform an experimental task. They were positioned standing 2.5 meters from
the screen, within a previously defined area. After watching some soccer scenes,
each participant deliberated on the next best course of action for the player in
the video. This video test protocol included 11 different 7–9 second scenes that
were excerpts from 11 vs. 11 soccer matches recorded from a third-person per-
spective. All the scenes presented to the participants were validated by a panel of
six experts. The 11 selected scenes displayed 100% agreement among experts
with respect to the most appropriate responses. This number of scenes, yet
limited, allowed us to observe the categories and variations of participants’
cognitive effort during the task (Cardoso et al., 2019). At the end of each
video sequence, the video was paused and the screen image was occluded
moments before an action was performed by the player. As soon as the video
was paused, the participant was instructed to verbally respond as quickly as
possible to “what the player in possession should do” at that moment. Before
the start of the experimental task, all procedures were thoroughly explained and
participants performed practice trials through two test scenes, to ensure famil-
iarity with the task. Data analysis was performed by two trained evaluators
whose interrater reliability value was of 97% with other two evaluators
(kappa index ¼ 0.96). This is higher than the minimum reliability value proposed
by the literature (Landis & Koch, 1977).
All test scenes were presented to participants on a retractable projection
screen (TES – TRM 150 V with a “Matte White” projection surface), with the
following measures: 3.04 X 2.28 meters. The video scenes were designed to be
used with an HD projector (Epson Powerlite X14) mounted to the ceiling, with
XGA resolution of 2.0X2.0 meters. We periodically checked the calibration of
the Mobile Eye Tracking – XG to ensure the accuracy of the pupillary behavior
readings. The entire test procedure lasted approximately 30 minutes per
6 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

participant. For this experiment, participants were asked not to ingest caffeine
24 hours prior to the start of the test.
We recorded all participant verbal responses with a microphone built into the
Mobile EyeTracking-XG (Applied Science Laboratories, Bedford, MA, USA).
We then transcribed the obtained audio material into a digital format in
Microsoft WordVR documents, using a portable computer (POSITIVE T model
3300 Intel Core TM i3 processor). We analyzed the transcribed data and com-
pared the responses with those from an official test panel (Mangas, 1999).
Subsequently, we awarded one point to each correct response provided by par-
ticipants, whereas errors were not scored, following the criteria employed by
other recently published studies (Am
erico et al., 2017; Cardoso et al., 2019).
After generating the final score, the results obtained were displayed based on the
percentage of correct answers.
To analyze cognitive effort, we used values of pupil diameter variability,
relative to baseline values such that we considered the difference (in millimeters)
between the baseline value and the peaks of pupil diameter during the video
tasks. We collected the baseline value of the pupil diameter shortly after the
equipment was calibrated, using a black background screen. We obtained exper-
imental mean values of peak pupil diameter during the presentation of the 11
test video scenes (the period related to the test response or participant’s verbal-
ization was discarded due to the participants’ head movements during this
period). This analysis was performed for each participant, enabling us to dis-
tinguish those who displayed higher or lower cognitive effort for decision
making throughout the protocol, without discriminating the relative response
specificities of each of the scenes. This method of analysis allowed close inspec-
tion of the actual cognitive effort associated with decisional problem solving.
Only the scenes to which players provided correct responses were used for anal-
ysis. In this protocol, the players’ accuracy rate in the video task was of 81.17%.

Tactical Behavior. In order to collect data regarding players’ tactical behavior, we

used the System of Tactical Assessment in Soccer – FUT-SAT validated by
Teoldo et al. (for more information, see Teoldo et al., 2011). FUT-SAT
allows the assessment of players’ tactical behavior efficiency through the anal-
ysis of their tactical actions with and without the ball during the task. FUT-SAT
is based on the core tactical principles of soccer, which comprise five principles
for the offensive phase and five principles for the defensive phase (for more
information, see Teoldo et al., 2015).
The field test that made up this instrument was conducted in a field of 36
meters long by 27 meters wide. Participants were grouped into two teams, each
with three outfield players and a goalkeeper (GK-3 vs. 3-GK), and each team
included a defender, a midfielder and an attacker. During the test, players were
asked to play according to the official rules of the game. Players were given
between 30-60 seconds to familiarize themselves with the test and to warm-up.
Cardoso et al. 7

The test had duration of four minutes, as recommended in the original protocol
(Teoldo et al., 2011). For the 24 hours prior to the test, players were asked not to
ingest caffeine nor to perform vigorous physical activities; and, for the 72 hours
prior to the experimental protocol, players did not participate in official matches.
In order to assess players’ tactical behavior efficiency, we followed the pro-
cedures proposed by Teoldo et al. (2011). A trained analyst performed data
analysis, and two other analysts performed the reliability analysis. Reliability
values among rater evaluations were 97%, which is higher than the minimum
Kappa index of .94 proposed by other researchers (Landis & Koch, 1977;
Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Data Analysis
We used descriptive statistics to obtain means and standard deviations of tac-
tical behavior efficiency and cognitive effort. The normality of data distribution
was verified using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. To verify the association
between the variables, we used linear regression; the R-squared was used to
indicate the coefficient of determination, and adjusted R-squared was used to
indicate the explanatory power of the regression models. The Durbin-Watson
test was used to detect the presence of autocorrelation (dependence) in the
regression residues. For this purpose, we assumed that cognitive effort was
associated with tactical behavior efficiency. Consequently, we hypothesized
that players who employed less cognitive effort were more tactically efficient.
We performed all statistical procedures with SPSS, version 24.0 and set the
statistical significance level at p < .05.

Results
The linear regression test indicated that when players needed to exert less cog-
nitive effort during the video task, they displayed better tactical behavior effi-
ciency (see Figure 1). The regression model was significant (F(51) ¼ 49,396;
p < .001), thus indicating a significantlt (p < .001) high association between
these variables (R ¼ .72), whereas the coefficient of determination (R2 ¼ .52)
showed that cognitive effort explained slightly more than 50% of the variance
for tactical behavior efficiency (see Table 1).

Discussion
This study examined the association between young soccer players’ cognitive
effort and tactical behavior. We found a significant association between cogni-
tive effort and tactical behavior, in that players who invested lower cognitive
effort in soccer decision-making tasks displayed higher tactical behavior.
8 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

Figure 1. Scatter Plot Showing the Association of Tactical Behavior Efficiency and Pupil
Diameter Variability (Cognitive Effort).

Table 1. Results of the Linear Regression Test.

R R-squared Adjusted R-squared CI 95% Significance level Durbin-Watson

.705 .516 .486 93.12–98.95 <.005* 2.067

*Significance level p < 0.05; CI ¼ Confidence Interval (95%).

With respect to practical applications in the soccer context, our findings

indicate both the importance and quality of a connection between players’ cog-
nitive effort investment and their tactical behavior. Based on previously
reported data (Bornemann et al., 2010; Naito & Hirose, 2014; Robert &
Hockey, 1997), the process of internal control and management of cognitive
effort during decision making seems to directly affect players’ tactical behavior
and, consequently, their sports performance.
Several recent studies have shown that sports performance was directly asso-
ciated with better regulation of cortical activity, even if to the detriment of
physical and physiological capacities (Kunrath et al., 2018; van der Wel &
van Steenbergen, 2018; Vickers & Williams, 2017; Voss et al., 2010). The ability
Cardoso et al. 9

to manage the investment of cognitive effort in tasks induces significant econ-

omy in cortical functioning, promoting automaticity in the behavior performed.
Some studies suggest that individuals who achieve a high level of expertise are
better able to manage cognitive effort (Botvinick et al., 2001; van der Wel & van
Steenbergen, 2018; Westbrook & Braver, 2015). Thus, our results allow us to
suggest that, in an ideal scenario, in order to display better tactical behavior, the
cognitive effort that players are required to employ in really important situa-
tions will be reduced. This reduction in cognitive effort allows for a greater
ability to manage soccer’s cognitive demands, and is likely to reduce players’
mental fatigue (Kunrath et al., 2018).
One of the main ways to prompt a reduction in the investment of cognitive
effort in soccer is through motor training. Training fosters knowledge acquisi-
tion, potentially reducing the need for effortful retrieval of long-term memory
during the game and facilitates the utilization of working memory, thus ensuring
automaticity of behavior (Alarc
on et al., 2018; Cardoso et al., 2019). Hence,
with respect to possible interventions based on reducing cognitive effort, we
recommend the design and utilization of appropriate training stimuli primarily
focused on the athlete, and not only on the drill per se, with the purpose of
promoting automaticity in retrieving soccer knowledge and reducing cognitive
effort in common game situations (Williams et al., 1993). Investing in technol-
ogies that enable coaches and trainers to assess players’ cognitive effort during
training activities and games may prompt an understanding, control, and direct
training of cognitive effort.
Since we found lower cognitive effort to be associated with better tactical
behavior, our findings indicate the importance of tactical training, with high
cognitive demands, for players’ development. As a result of tactical training,
players will adapt and increase their ability to deal with high cognitive demands
and therefore to employ lower cognitive effort when making decisions in the
game. However, to achieve this goal, training design should have a fair degree of
correspondence with real game situations and require players to learn to act
under time and space constraints. Training is then likely to support the devel-
opment of important aspects, such as attention, memory, pattern recognition
skills, and situational probabilities (Otero-Esquina et al., 2017; Ward &
Williams, 2003; Williams et al., 2012). As these elements are developed, players
will likely increase their ability to manage cognitive effort (generating higher
cognitive efficiency) for making decisions in the game, which may consequently
improve their tactical behaviors.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

One of the limitations of the present study is the laboratory task used for mea-
suring cognitive effort. Although the laboratory task allowed the standardiza-
tion of the decision making conditions, the utilization of video scenes and the
10 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

participants’ verbal description of their intended actions did not directly transfer
to players’ decisions and actions in game conditions. For future studies, ideal
experimental designs should include new creative measurements of cognitive
effort in real game situatios. Secondly, to ensure that reduced cognitive effort
is directly associated to tactical behavior, researchers might measure the activa-
tion of brain regions during the tasks with instruments such as quantitative EEG
(QEEG) or functional magenetic resonance (fMRI).

Conclusions
In a study with young soccer players in which we used pupillary behavior to
measure cognitive effort and eye tracking to measure tactical behavior efficien-
cy, we found an inverse relationship between these variables, with greater tacticl
behavior efficiency associated with cognitive effort. This important association
has practical implications for soccer training, and this finding sets the stage for
further advances in this line of research going forward.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by
Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior – Brasil (CAPES) –
[Codigo de Financiamento 01]. We also thank the development agencies that made this
work possible SEDESE through LIE, FAPEMIG, CNPq, FUNARBE, the UFV
Rectory, Pro-Rectory of Research and Post-Graduation and the Centre of Life and
Health Science at the Universidade Federal de Vicosa, Brazil.

Ethical Approval
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: The project was approved by the Ethics
Committee for Research with Human Beings (CAAE, No. 01903818.7.0000.5153).

ORCID iD
Felippe da S. L. Cardoso https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2861-6777

References
Alarc

on, F., Castillo-D
ıaz, A., Madinabeitia, I., Castillo-Rodr
ıguez, A., & Cárdenas, D.
(2018). La carga mental deteriora la precisi

on del pase en jugadores de f
utbol [Mental
load impairs passing accuracy in soccer players]. Mental Workload Impairs the Pass
Precision in Soccer Players, 27(2), 155–164.
Cardoso et al. 11

Am
erico, H. B., Kowalski, M., Cardoso, F., Kunrath, C. A., González-V
ıllora, S., &
Teoldo, I. (2017). Difference in declarative tactical knowledge between U-11 and U-15
soccer players. Human Movement, 18(5), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/humo-2017-
0045
Bornemann, B., Foth, M., Horn, J., Ries, J., Warmuth, E., Wartenburger, I., & Meer, E.
(2010). Mathematical cognition: Individual differences in resource allocation. ZDM,
42(6), 555–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-010-0253-x
Botvinick, M. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: Reconciling two
perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral
Neuroscience, 7(4), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.7.4.356
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001).
Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624
Brouwer, A. M., Hogervorst, M. A., Holewijn, M., & van Erp, J. B. F. (2014). Evidence
for effects of task difficulty but not learning on neurophysiological variables associ-
ated with effort. International Journal of Psychophysiology: Official Journal of the
International Organization of Psychophysiology, 93(2), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.05.004
Cap~ao Filipe, J. A., Falc~ao-Reis, F., Castro-Correia, J., & Barros, H. (2003). Assessment
of autonomic function in high level athletes by pupillometry. Autonomic Neuroscience,
104(1), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1566-0702(02)00268-0
Cardoso, F. S. L., González-V
ıllora, S., Guilherme, J., & Teoldo, I. (2019). Young soccer
players with higher tactical knowledge display lower cognitive effort. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 126(3), 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512519826437
Duchowski, A. T., Biele, C., & Niedzielska, A. (2018). The index of pupillary activity mea-
suring cognitive load vis-à-vis task difficulty with pupil oscillation. CHI, 2018(1), 1–13.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* power 3: A flexible
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.
Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. SAGE.
Hahnemann, D., & Beatty, J. (1967). Pupillary responses in a pitch-discrimination task.
Perception & Psychophysics, 2(3), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210302
Hess, E., & Polt, J. (1964). Pupil size in relation to mental activity during simple problem
solving. Science (New York, N.Y.), 143(3611), 1190–1192. https://doi.org/10.1126/sci
ence.143.3611.1190
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Miyake, A. (2003). Neuroindices of cognitive workload:
Neuroimaging, pupillometric and event-related potential studies of brain work.
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4(1–2), 56–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14639220210159735
Karatekin, C. (2004). Development of attentional allocation in the dual task paradigm.
International Journal of Psychophysiology: Official Journal of the International
Organization of Psychophysiology, 52(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.
2003.12.002
Klingner, J., Tversky, B., & Hanrahan, P. (2011). Effects of visual and verbal presenta-
tion on cognitive load in vigilance, memory, and arithmetic tasks. Psychophysiology,
48(3), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01069.x
12 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

Kunrath, C. A., Cardoso, F., Nakamura, F. Y., & Teoldo, I. (2018). Mental fatigue as a
conditioner of the tactical and physical response in soccer players: A pilot study.
Human Movement, 19(3), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.5114/hm.2018.76075
Kunrath, C., Andr
e, Cardoso, F., da, S. L., Garc
ıa-Calvo, T., & Teoldo, I. (2020).
Mental fatigue in soccer: A systematic review. Revista Brasileira de Medicina Do
Esporte, 26(2), 172–178.
Kunrath, C., Andr
e, Nakamura, F. Y., Roca, A., Tessitore, A., & Teoldo, I. (2020). How
does mental fatigue affect soccer performance during small-sided games? A cognitive,
tactical and physical approach. Journal of Sport Science, 38(15), 1818–1828. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1756681
Laeng, B., Sirois, S., & Gredeb€ack, G. (2012). Pupillometry: A window to the precon-
scious? Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for
Psychological Science, 7(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611427305
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for cat-
egorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lee, T. D., Swinnen, S. P., & Serrien, D. J. (1994). Cognitive effort and motor learning.
Quest, 46(3), 328–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1994.10484130
Mangas, C. J. (1999). Conhecimento declarativo no futebol: Estudo comparativo em pra-
ticantes federados e n~ao-federados, do escal~ao de Sub-14. [Declarative knowledge in
soccer: Comparative study in federated and non-federated practitioners from the u-14
level] (98 p.) [Master thesis]. Faculdade de Desporto da Universidade do Porto,
Universidade do Porto, Porto.
Moran, A., Quinn, A., Campbell, M., Rooney, B., Brady, N., & Burke, C. (2016). Using
pupillometry to evaluate attentional effort in quiet eye: A preliminary. Sport, Exercise,
and Performance Psychology, August, 5(4), 365–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/
spy0000066
Naito, E., & Hirose, S. (2014). Efficient foot motor control by Neymar’s brain. Frontiers
in Human Neuroscience, 8, 594–597. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00594
Otero-Esquina, C., de Hoyo Lora, M., Gonzalo-Skok, Ó., Dom
ınguez-Cobo, S., &
Sánchez, H. (2017). Is strength-training frequency a key factor to develop perfor-
mance adaptations in young elite soccer players? European Journal of Sport Science,
17(10), 1241–1251.
Raab, M. (2003). Decision making in sports: Influence of complexity on implicit and
explicit learning. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(4),
406–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197x.2003.9671728
Robert, G., & Hockey, J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human
performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework.
Biological Psychology, 45(1–3), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(96)05223-4
Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2013). The expected value of control: An
integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79(2), 217–240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.007
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Harper and
Row Publishers.
Teoldo, I., Garganta, J., Greco, P., Mesquita, I., & Maia, J. (2011). System of tactical
assessment in soccer (FUT-SAT): Development and preliminary validation.
Motricidade, 7(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.6063/motricidade.7(1).121
Cardoso et al. 13

Teoldo, I., Guilherme, J., & Garganta, J. (2015). Training football for smart playing: On
tactical performance of teams and players. Appris.
van der Wel, P., & van Steenbergen, H. (2018). Pupil dilation as an index of effort in
cognitive control tasks: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 25(06), 2005–
2015. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1432-y
Vickers, J. N., & Williams, A. M. (2017). The role of mental processes in elite sports
performance. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology, 1, 1–25. https://doi.org/
10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.161
Voss, M., Kramer, A. F., Basak, C., Prakash, R. S., & Roberts, B. (2010). Are expert
athletes ‘expert’ in the cognitive laboratory? A meta-analytic review of cognition and
sport expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 812–826. https://doi.org/10.1002/
acp
Westbrook, A., & Braver, T. S. (2015). Cognitive effort: A neuroeconomic approach.
Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(2), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.
3758/s13415-015-0334-y
Williams, A. M., Ward, P., Bell-Walker, J., & Ford, P. R. (2012). Perceptual-cognitive
expertise, practice history profiles and recall performance in soccer. British Journal of
Psychology (London, England: 1953), 103(3), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8295.2011.02081.x
Williams, M., Davids, K., Burwitz, L., & Williams, J. (1993). Cognitive knowledge and
soccer performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76(2), 579–593.
Wilson, M. R., Vine, S. J., & Wood, G. (2009). The influence of anxiety on visual
attentional control in basketball free throw shooting. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 31, 152–168.

Author Biographies
Felippe da S. L. Cardoso has a PhD in physical education from the Universidade Federal de Viçosa.
Member of the Centre of Research and Studies in Soccer – NUPEF. He develops scientific works in
the areas of Soccer focusing on the tactical component, the decision-making process, pupilometry
and cognitive effort.

Tomás Garc
ıa-Calvo Professor at the Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura (Spain).
PhD in Sport Psychology. Coordinator of the Research Group on Behavioral Analysis in Physical
Activity and Sport. UEFA PRO soccer coach. Advisor to different professional soccer clubs.
Collaborator in the LaLiga Research department.

Tomas Patrick PhD, South Australian Sports Institute. He served as the High Performance Director
for ASPETAR in Qatar. Currently it is High Performance Director at the South Australian Sports
Institute.

Jos
e Afonso Post-Doctorate in Periodization of Exercise, Professor at the Faculty of Sport of UP.
Author of a Springer shortbook on the importance of asymmetries in the human movement. Master
Science Lab trainer. He is a researcher in the areas of: Decision Making; Visual Behaviors and Body
Behaviors; Biomechanical Markers.

Israel Teoldo has PhD in Sports Sciences from the Faculty of Sport at the University of Porto and a
Post-Doctor in Sports Science from Brunel University London. He is an associate professor of the
14 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

Department of Physical Education at the Universidade Federal de Viçosa. He is also a coordinator

of the Centre of Research and Studies in Soccer – NUPEF, coordinator of the Lato Sensu Post-
graduate Course in Soccer at Federal Universidade Federal de Viçosa, and a professor of Training
Courses at CBF and CONMEBOL. He develops numerous researches focusing on the tactical
component of the game and the decision making process.