Three perspectives were taken to explain decision-making within team sports (information processing, recognition primed decision-making, and ecological dynamics perspectives), resulting in conceptual tension and practical confusion. The aim of this paper was to interrogate empirical evidence to (1) understand the process of decision-making within team sports and (2) capture the characteristics of decision-making expertise in a team sport context. Nine electronic databases (SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, PsycTests, PubMed, SAGE journals online, Web of Knowledge, Academic Search Complete, and Web of Science) were searched until the final return in March 2021. Fifty-three articles satisfied the inclusion criteria, were analysed thematically, and synthesised using a narrative approach. Findings indicate that the relative absence or presence of mental representation within the decision-making process depends on factors, including complexity, typicality, time available, and contextual priors available in the game situation. We recommend that future research integrate concepts and methodologies prevalent within each perspective to better understand decision-making within team sports before providing implications for practitioners.

Background A defining characteristic of expertise is automated performance of skills, which frees attentional capacity to better cope with some common intraoperative stressors. There is a paucity of research on how best to foster automated performance by surgical trainees. This study examined the use of a multitask training approach to promote automated, robust laparoscopic skills. Methods Eighty-one medical students completed training of a fundamental laparoscopic task in either a traditional single-task training condition or a novel multitask training condition. Following training, participants’ laparoscopic performance was tested in a retention test, two stress transfer tests (distraction and time pressure) and a secondary task test, which was included to evaluate automaticity of performance. The laparoscopic task was also performed as part of a formal clinical examination (OSCE). Results The training groups did not differ in the number of trials required to reach task proficiency (p = .72), retention of skill (ps > .45), or performance in the clinical examination (p = .14); however, the groups did differ with respect to the secondary task (p = .016). The movement efficiency (number of hand movements) of single-task trainees, but not multitask trainees, was negatively affected during the secondary task test. The two stress transfer tests had no discernable impact on the performance of either training group. Conclusion Multitask training was not detrimental to the rate of learning of a fundamental laparoscopic skill and added value by providing resilience in the face of a secondary task load, indicative of skill automaticity. Further work is needed to determine the extent of the clinical utility afforded by multitask training.