As I just learned from today's mail (alum publication from Michigan Tech on its current research programs), Paul Ward, a Brit PhD in Cognitive Psych - came to MTU in 2010.

... His initial post-doctoral work was funded by the Army and conducted under the direction of Peter Hancock in Applied Experimental and Human Factors Psychology at the University of Central Florida. Dr. Ward continued his post-doctoral work in Applied Cognitive Science, funded by the Office of Naval Research, under the direction of K. Anders Ericsson at Florida State University. ...
...
Dr. Ward’s specific research interests are in examining expertise, expert performance and decision making, particularly in complex and dynamic domains such as law enforcement, emergency/critical care, and sports. His primary interests are in examining the cognitive processes and skills that are responsible for superior/successful performance and performance improvement, and how these skills are acquired through practice and training.
MTU's ACE Lab has a long list of Ward's publications since 2000 in law enforcement, emergency/critical care, and sports.

I've sampled three today. The first on expert and non-expert soccer players, Mechanisms underlying skilled anticipation and recognition in a dynamic and temporally constrained domain (2011):

Participants

A total of 11 skilled and 8 less-skilled male soccer players participated. Skilled participants (M age = 25.5 years, SD = 4) played at a semi-professional level and nine of these had previously played for professional clubs in England. They had been playing soccer for an average of 15.1 years (SD = 3.1) and currently trained/played for an average of 9 hours (SD = 2.4) per week. Less skilled players (M age = 24 years, SD = 1.6) had not participated in the sport above recreational level. They had played soccer for an average of 11.1 years (SD = 3.3), although they currently played for an average of only 0.4 hours (SD = 0.7) per week.
...
Anticipation. As per our hypotheses, ANOVA revealed a significant difference in anticipation accuracy between skilled and less-skilled participants, F(1, 17) = 22.4, pB.001, hp 2 = .57. Skilled participants (M = 65.3%, SD = 8.16) were more accurate when making anticipation decisions than less-skilled (M = 46.8%, SD = 8.7) participants, d = 2.2.

Recognition. The analysis of d? revealed a significant main effect for skill, F(1, 17) = 21.1, pB.001, hp 2 = .55. Skilled participants (M = 0.80, SD = 0.60) were more sensitive in distinguishing previously seen from novel stimuli than less-skilled (M = 0.36, SD = 0.71) participants, d =0.70.
The two on "shoot, don't shoot" in law enforcement followed the same lines, with huge differences in results between experts and novices in the three toughest scenarios, in the first study, Skill-based differences in option generation in a complex task: a verbal protocol analysis (2011). The second study I read also suggested that "expertise" is more than training an automaton, Skill-based differences in the cognitive mechanisms underlying failure under stress (2010).

Contrary to choking research findings, the performance of experts was not adversely affected by skill-focused attention whereas novices were. This pattern was also reflected in a range of process measures. The results challenge currently accepted explanations of choking under pressure, and suggest that the degree to which expert performance is cognitively mediated may be greater than previously assumed. Implications for traditional theories of skill acquisition and for training to perform in stressful environments are discussed.
There are several emergency/critical care studies I didn't get to.

Here are the three exemplar scenarios from the first "shoot-don't shoot" study:

Exemplar scenarios

Blow up

Radio message/context ‘‘You and your partner are responding to a call describing a disturbance outside of a school. A boy sitting on the grass directly in front of you has been acting suspiciously.’’

Scenario description The participant arrives on scene with another officer. The fellow officer escorts students away from the suspect and asks the participant to take care of the suspect. As the participant approaches the suspect, the boy gets up and becomes verbally aggressive. The boy is wearing an untucked, partially buttoned shirt. A wire can be seen hanging down under the shirt. The boy opens his shirt to expose an improvised explosive device around his waist. A school bus approaches in the background. The boy removes the actuator from his waistline and holds it in his hand. He then gets flustered and drops the actuator on the ground. He bends down to pick it back up and then detonates the device just as the school bus pulls up next to him.

The time between the turning point (denoted in italics in the scenario description) and the end of the trial (i.e., if participant did not shoot) was 13.51 s.

Convenience store

Radio message/context ‘‘While on patrol, you stop at the neighborhood convenience store for a cup of coffee. You are getting out of your car and going into the store.

Scenario description The participant enters the store. The store manager greets him and nervously invites him to stay and have a cup of coffee. The camera pans to allow the participant to looking around the store (and away from the store manager). While looking around, the sound of a round being chambered into a firearm can be heard. The camera pans back around to show the perpetrator holding the store manager hostage. After a few seconds, the perpetrator surrenders, puts his weapon down, and releases the store manager. Immediately afterwards, the perpetrator then draws a backup weapon and shoots in the direction of the participant.

The time between the turning point and the end of the trial was 5.46 s.

School hostage

Radio message/context ‘‘You and your partner are responding to a call describing a possible hostage situation at a school. You are in the passenger seat and your partner is driving to the scene.’’

Scenario description The officers drive into the school’s service (i.e., back) entrance. After entering this area, just as they stop and begin to get out of the car vehicle, a male suspect armed with an assault rifle becomes visible, close to the rear entrance to the school. The male immediately turns to run back into the school and appears surprised to see the police. The suspect opens the rear door and enters the school with the assault rifle.

The time between the turning point and the end of the trial was 6.07 s.
Regards

Mike