A018: Dual-Process Advantages of Ball Players in Sport-RelatedDomains

Background: Based on a dual-process framework, two qualitatively different modes of processing guide human behaviour. Type 1 processes refer to automatic, unconscious processing that can be responsible for Task 1, while Type 2 processes refer to controlled, conscious processing required by Task 2. Although many existing sport psychology studies emphasize that the dual-process model can be applied to the sports domain, this application has shortcomings. The first debate of this application is whether dual-process advantages in athletes are limited to sport-specific realms. Furthermore, although the dual-process framework pays more attention to automatic processes (Type 1 processes), it loses sight of subliminal processes, as well as the combination between subliminal processes (Type 1 processes) and working memory processes (Type 2 processes), which is more associated with real competitive game situations. The second controversy is the relationship between the two processing types. Therefore, the present article aimed to answer two questions: (1) whether athletes show better performance in the dual-process situation when the stimuli are not related or related to their expertise domain, and (2) whether dual processes compete for cognitive resources, that is, whether working memory load influences subliminal priming. Methods: The study used a mixed factorial design of 2 (subjects: athletes vs. non-athletes) x 2 (load: low vs. high) x 2 (consistency: consistent vs. inconsistent). A novel dual-process paradigm was developed, where participants performed a subliminal priming task while completing a working memory task. The memory materials were digits and the subliminal stimuli were either unrelated to (Experiment 1) or related to (Experiment 2) specialized athletic experience. Electroencephalography was employed in this study. Sixty aged-matched competitive table tennis players and 60 non-athletes participated. Results: The results showed that there was no significant difference between athletes and non-athletes in the performance of subliminal processing under working memory load in Experiment 1; however, in Experiment 2, athletes were significantly better than non-athletes. Additionally, subliminal priming remained unaffected with increasing working memory load among both athletes and non-athletes. Cross-experiment analyses revealed a significant four-way interaction effect of experiment x group x load x consistency. Conclusions: These results suggest that athletes show better performance in the dual-process situation when the stimuli are related to their expertise domain. In addition, dual processes compete for cognitive resources, that is, working memory load influences subliminal priming.