# Visual Fixations in Basketball Shooting: Differences between Shooting Conditions
## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Dependent**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Independent Variables**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Wilcoxon Test**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Magnitude**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Positions** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Shooting** \\ **Conditions** \\ \end{tabular} & **Value** & \(p\) & **d** & **(Qualitative)** \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Efficiency} & 1 & N—B & \(-0.259\) & 0.795 & 0.035 & (trivial) \\ \cline{2-7}  & 2 & N—B & \(-2.274\) & \(0.023\) & 0.225 & (trivial) \\ \cline{1-1}  & O—B & \(-1.509\) & 0.131 & 0.170 & (trivial) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-7}  & 3 & N—B & \(-0.065\) & 0.948 & 0.007 & (trivial) \\ \cline{1-1}  & O—B & \(-2.352\) & \(0.019\) & 0.252 & (trivial) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-7}  & 4 & N—B & \(-0.146\) & 0.884 & 0.014 & (trivial) \\ \cline{1-1}  & O—B & \(-0.568\) & 0.570 & 0.099 & (trivial) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Legend: B1—Position 1, Baseline condition; B2—Position 2, Baseline condition; B3—Position 3, Baseline condition; B4—Position 4, Baseline condition; N1—Position 1, Simulated gym audience noise condition; N2—Position 2, Simulated gym audience noise condition; N3—Position 3, Simulated gym audience noise condition; N4—Position 4, Simulated gym audience noise condition; O2—Position 2, Opposition condition; O3—Position 3, Opposition condition; O4—Position 4, Opposition condition. Underline \(p\) values are values with statistically significant differences.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._All of them have a lower total duration of fixation values for the conditions with constraints when compared to the baseline. For the total number of fixations, shooting with opposition has a lower average than the baseline ones (Table 2). This may be because the athlete does not focus only on the target but also on the opponent, or even because the vision of the target is reduced, in line with previous studies [25]. In addition, the lower duration and number of fixations when shooting with opposition may be because concentration on the target decreases with the presence of an external constraint [51]. In terms of efficiency, there are higher values in unopposed shots (the baseline condition) when compared to shots with opposition, which is in line with previous studies that state that external factors and pressures lead to a decrease in effectiveness [18; 22; 23]. In the comparisons carried out on shots with gym audience noise, there is no common trend, in line with what was found by [PERSON] et al. for constant background noise [29]. Studies that compare experts and non-experts concluded that the experts have a lower number of fixations but higher times in each fixation, which means they can concentrate longer on the task, without being distracted by external factors [52]. Experts also have higher effectiveness values compared to non-experts. This is in line with the results obtained in this study, in which higher efficacy values are observed in shots with a longer total fixation duration, in this case, in baseline shots. Moreover, another study with visual behavior and basketball shooting concludes that, with higher values of accuracy, the number and total duration of fixations are also higher, which is in accordance with the results of the present study [53]. In shooting with opposition, the results are in line with the hypotheses, with statistically significant differences between shooting with and without opposition, reducing the values of the number and total duration of fixations in opposition ones. In shooting with simulated gym audience noise, the results do not agree with the hypotheses initially formulated, with no statistically significant differences being verified except for the N4 position, despite the lower values in shooting with simulated gym audience noise. The fact that the opposition is static and always at the same height and distance from the shooter does not exactly replicate what happens in the game, in which this opposition is variable, becoming a limitation of this study.