###### Abstract  
Visual anticipation is essential for performance in sports. This review provides information on the differences between stimulus presentations and motor responses in eye-tracking studies and considers virtual reality (VR), a new possibility to present stimuli. A systematic literature search on PubMed, ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, and SURF was conducted. The number of studies examining the influence of stimulus presentation (in situ, video) is deficient but still sufficient to describe differences in gaze behavior. The seven reviewed studies indicate that stimulus presentations can cause differences in gaze behavior. Further research should focus on displaying game situations via VR. The advantages of a scientific approach using VR are experimental control and repeatability. In addition, game situations could be standardized and movement responses could be included in the analysis. visual perception; motor response; gaze behavior; eye-tracking; virtual reality; validity +
Footnote †: 2021: 14 June 2021  
showed how important the relationship between humans and the environment appears in connection with perception [12]. In association with the studies with the occlusion technique, it is criticized that the researchers use stimuli that do not occur naturally in this way and that the researchers want to generalize the results. Several studies have shown that expert athletes anticipate the opponent's action earlier and more accurately than novices [13]. The focus lies on adequate reaction planning (laboratory studies) or standardization, a transfer to generality (field studies). Adequate reaction planning is mentioned in the perception-action coupling of [PERSON] [11]. This approach is closely related to how the reaction options specified in a study influence perception and the movement response. However, it lacks a more comprehensive analysis. The most recent meta-analyses data revealed that there could be differences between laboratory and field studies concerning gaze behavior [1]. In addition, the heuristics of judgement can differ due to the selected research design [14; 15]. [PERSON] [1] presented significant effects for the type of stimulus presentation to identify experts and novices for response accuracy (\(p\) = 0.02), the number of fixations (\(p\) = 0.004), and fixation duration (\(p\) < 0.001), but not for response time (\(p\) = 0.22). \"Although effect sizes are largest in the field, it is difficult to ascertain whether participants are responding to different stimuli, rendering reliable comparison highly problematic\" ([1], p. 474). The limited perspective induces different visual perception than in situ settings [14]. In the in situ perspective, the gaze is more centralized due to test persons making head movements instead of saccades [16]. The main advantages of video clips for presenting a situation while tracking participants' eye movements are standardization, repeatability and safety [17]. In the in situ perspective, there is a lack of standardization because of the real-life situation. Experimental psychology gave rise to the requirement to create task designs that are as representative as possible [12]. It has been recommended that task designs represent the organism's natural environment [18]. The presentation of stimuli through videos reduces the in situ perspective (3-D perspective) to a two-dimensional display [1]. It thus reduces the image size and depth of the display [19]. The advantage of VR representation lies in the possibility of standardizing the presented stimuli and letting the test person interact with the virtual environment as a stimulus response [20]. New technological advances (VR tools with 3-D graphics; head-mounted displays (HMD); or rendered screen presentations) also make it possible to offer a sport-specific situation in a 3-D setting. The latest developments are also dedicated to vision-action coupling and enabling movements such as shooting a ball and including the actions into the analysis [21].