## 3 Results
### Different Perspectives in Video Presentations  
A study conducted by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [30] (see Table 2) investigated two video presentation perspectives of simulated game scenes to estimate the effect of different stimuli presentations on expert perception and decision-making (forced-choice decision to pass or not to pass in response to game scenarios). The game scenes were shown from the broadcast point of view and the players' perspective (experienced vs. inexperienced soccer players). The masked prime paradigm was used to examine which parts of the scenes play a decisive role in the perception process. The results show that skilled soccer players make faster decisions. Furthermore, the presentation from the players' perspective (internal presentation mode) led to quicker and more precise decisions. The presentation perspective thus had a fundamental impact on decision latency and visual behavior. Considering [PERSON] et al. [18], the task design, viewing perspective, and presentation mode should be orientated at the organism's natural environment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & \(N=\) & **Population/Sports/Movement** & **Outcome Measure** & **Stimulus Presentation** & **Statistics and Effects** \\ \hline [PERSON] \& [PERSON] 2008 & Unknown & Experienced vs. & Decision latency and visual behavior (no further description) & Broadcast point of view (external) vs. view of the players (internal) & Internal presentation led to faster and more precise decisions; Significant influence of presentation mode on decision latency and visual behavior (no test statistics reported). & Internal presentation led to faster and more precise decisions; Significant influence of presentation mode on decision latency and visual behavior (no test statistics reported). & Internal presentation led to faster and more precise decisions; Significant influence of presentation mode on decision latency and visual behavior (no test statistics reported). & Internal presentation led to faster and more precise decisions; Significant influence of presentation mode on decision latency and visual behavior (no test statistics reported). & More extensive search and higher rate of fixations in the real perspective (\(\{12\}-49.0\), \(\rho<0.001\), \(d=0.92\)); Shorter search rate in the aerial view (\(\{12\}-49.0\), \(<0.002\), \(d=0.755\)). \\  & & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Articles that thematic different perspectives in video presentation. In the second reported study by [PERSON] et al. [31], 19 skilled youth soccer players were examined, observing identical game situations from two different viewing perspectives. The first perspective was the player perspective showing the experience of a player in this situation. The second perspective was an aerial view of the game situation from an elevated point overlying the same location on the field. Soccer players had a more extensive search pattern in the aerial perspective with a higher rate of fixations per second (\(t\)[12] = 4.90, \(p\) < 0.001, \(d\) = 0.92). The search rate was shorter in the aerial view compared to the player perspective (\(t\)[12] = 4.90, \(p\) < 0.002, \(d\) = 0.75). There was also a significant effect of the viewing perspective on where they set their fixations (\(F\)[8,5] = 6.56, \(p\) = 0.027, \(\eta_{p}^{2}\) = 0.91). For both perspectives, participants fixated on the correct option. However, in the player's view, this correct option was chosen less frequently. The two studies demonstrate the differences in visual behavior and decision-making processes determined by the point of view or the perspective (Q3). It can be summarized that the quality of the eye-tracking studies is defined by the compromise or the interplay between ecological validity (field study) and internal validity (laboratory study). The sport-specific and task-specific perception often runs synchronously with the motor action [32].