## 3 Results
### In Situ vs. Video Presentation  
According to [PERSON] et al. [24], [PERSON] et al. [25] postulated that the laboratory settings might not accurately show the experts advantages due to \"(a) removal of experience factor(s) are associated with actually performing the task in an ecologically valid setting, (b) the introduction of potential floor or ceiling effects in measurement variability, and (c) constraining the expert's typical responses to either using different information to create a response or preventing access to information normally available in the performance context\". Understanding the processes that underpin a qualified decision requires experimental conditions that reproduce the real context and task specificity as closely as possible [26]. The researchers combine as many variables as possible from real situations under laboratory conditions to achieve the highest ecological validity [27]. The question in this context is to what extent the eye movements and visual search strategies differ in connection with the research design or presenting the visual stimuli. [PERSON] et al. [25] (see Table 1) examined the effects of perceptual information on tennis coaches' visual behavior and error detection. The study provides information on the first research question: To what extent does the stimulus presentation influence fixations, eye movements, and cognitive processes? The authors carried out three gaze behavior measures: a laboratory 2-D presentation (video-based), an in situ setting on the court, and another presentation in the laboratory (video-based). Ten male tennis coaches (five experienced; five novices) had to detect errors in second topspin services (10 times). The outcome measure was the verbalized error detection and gaze behavior parameters (number of fixations, fixation duration, and fixation locations). There were fewer fixations and a shorter fixation duration for the 3-D and the second 2-D presentations (\(p<0.001\)). Experienced coaches showed fewer fixations than novices. The experiment results support the hypothesis that gaze behavior differences are expected due to different stimulus presentations (Q1). Figure 1: PRISMA flow diagram of literature search. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c} \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Articles thematic differences between video and in situ stimulus presentation. [PERSON] et al. [14] analyzed the gaze behavior, responses (verbal, movement, and interceptive) and performance of eight male experienced goalkeepers. The stimulus that the goalkeepers had to react to was a penalty kick carried out by a trained penalty shooter. The mean fixation duration, the mean number of fixation locations, and the mean number of fixations were measured. The stimuli were presented in an in-situ setting and laboratory (video-based). Significant differences for the condition for fixation duration (\(F\)[4; 23] = 3.117, \(p\) < 0.05) and for the number of fixation locations (\(F\)[4; 23] = 4.218, \(p\) < 0.01) were detected. Significant differences in the different conditions with the number of fixations could not be shown (\(F\)[4; 23] = 2.404, \(p\) = 0.08). The study shows that gaze behavior differences can arise from different stimulus presentation types and the subsequent response (verbal, movement, or interception). The study indicates that a separation between the vision for controlling perception and actions can be useful. Perception, measured by the test subjects' eye movements, seems dependent on the following options for action (Q2). [PERSON] et al. [28] examined the visual search behaviors and verbal reports during film-based and in situ representative tasks in volleyball players. Nine female experienced volleyball players participated in the experiment and acted as background defenders in six scenarios. The number of fixations, fixation duration, and fixation locations was measured. The settings could be characterized as in situ and video-based with a verbal response.