CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 118Sport Psychology and PerformanceSports and Physical Education ResearchCognitive Functions and Memory

Metacognition and action: a new pathway to understanding social and cognitive aspects of expertise in sport

Open access
MacIntyre, Tadhg E., Igou, Eric R., Campbell, Mark J., Moran, Aidan P., Matthews, James·2014·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01155PMC PMC4199257
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

For over a century, psychologists have investigated the mental processes of expert performers - people who display exceptional knowledge and/or skills in specific fields of human achievement. Since the 1960s, expertise researchers have made considerable progress in understanding the cognitive and neural mechanisms that underlie such exceptional performance. Whereas the first modern studies of expertise were conducted in relatively formal knowledge domains such as chess, more recent investigations have explored elite performance in dynamic perceptual-motor activities such as sport. Unfortunately, although these studies have led to the identification of certain domain-free generalizations about expert-novice differences, they shed little light on an important issue: namely, experts' metacognitive activities or their insights into, and regulation of, their own mental processes. In an effort to rectify this oversight, the present paper argues that metacognitive processes and inferences play an important if neglected role in expertise. In particular, we suggest that metacognition (including such processes as "meta-attention," "meta-imagery" and "meta-memory," as well as social aspects of this construct) provides a window on the genesis of expert performance. Following a critique of the standard empirical approach to expertise, we explore some research on "metacognition" and "metacognitive inference" among experts in sport. After that, we provide a brief evaluation of the relationship between psychological skills training and metacognition and comment on the measurement of metacognitive processes. Finally, we summarize our conclusions and outline some potentially new directions for research on metacognition in action.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01155

Cites

141 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Enabling users to critically evaluate AI outputs can build self-awareness by forcing users to rationalize their decisions to the GenAI system, enhance metacognitive flexibility by providing users with different perspectives on their task, and adjust confidence by adapting explanations to the users' needs and the models' confidence.

    “Enabling users to critically evaluate AI outputs can build self-awareness by forcing users to rationalize their decisions to the GenAI system [156], enhance metacognitive flexibility by providing users with different perspectives on their task [15], and adjust confidence by adapting explanations to the users' needs and the models' confidence [110].”

    From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [110]

    Split into 3 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 144 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bless H. Keller J. Igou E. R. (2009). “Metacognition,” in Social Cognition, the Basis of Human Interaction. Frontiers of Social Psychology eds Förster J. Strack F. (New York: Psychology Press) 157– 178.
  2. Corry J. (1984). TV review; ABC’S coverage of the Olympics. The New York Times 11th February
  3. Nelson T. O. (1999). “Cognition versus metacognition,” in The Nature of Cognition ed. Sternberg R. J. (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press) 625– 641.
  4. Nelson T. O. Narens L. (1994). Why Investigate Metacognition? Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
  5. Schwarz N. (2002). “Situated cognition and the wisdom of feelings: cognitive tuning,” in The Wisdom in Feelings eds Barrett L. F. Salovey P. (New York: Guilford Press) 144– 166.
  6. Van Overschelde J. P. (2008). “Metacognition: knowing about knowing,” in Handbook of Metamemory and Memory eds Dunlosky J. Bjork R. A. (New York: Psychology Press) 47– 71.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
MacIntyre, T. E., Igou, E. R., Campbell, M. J., Moran, A. P., & Matthews, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Limerick (IE)
  • University College Dublin (IE)
Corresponding author
MacIntyre, Tadhg E.
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2014-10-16
Volume
5
Pages
1155-1155
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01155
PMC
PMC4199257
OpenAlex
W2034922438
Cited by
118
References
144
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • University of Limerick Institutional Repository (University of Limerick) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • University of Limerick
  • Irish Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Sports and Physical Education Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
metacognition, sport expertise, expert performance, meta-attention, metamemory, mental training, expert-novice differences, perceptual-motor performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review