Paul Ellison

Determining Eye–Hand Coordination Using the Sport Vision Trainer: An Evaluation of Test–Retest Reliability

The purpose of this investigation was to assess the number of test–retest trials required to familiarize participants in order to provide acceptable reliability for the measurement of an eye–hand coordination task using the Sport Vision Trainer (SVT). Two schedules were conducted (S1 and S2). For S1, 64 participants (male n = 51, age 20.8 ± 4.9 years; female n = 13, age 20.1 ± 2.1 years) attended four sessions each 1 week apart, and undertook four trials using the SVT. For S2, 60 participants (male n = 46, age 20.8 ± 4.9 years; female n = 14, age 20.1 ± 2.1 years) attended one 20-minute schedule consisting of four consecutive trials using the SVT. Limits of agreement (LoA) analyses showed that absolute reliability was increased in both studies. The LoA for S2 indicate that error decreased between trial 1–2, 2–3, and 3–4; ± 0.95 (CI, −1.16, +2.56sec), ± 0.97 (CI, −1.66, +2.14sec), ± 0.69 (CI, −1.08, +1.62sec). It was concluded that reliable measurements of eye–hand coordination can be obtained using the SVT in one session.

Information Acquisition Differences between Experienced and Novice Time Trial Cyclists

Purpose To use eye-tracking technology to directly compare information acquisition behavior of experienced and novice cyclists during a self-paced, 10-mile (16.1 km) time trial (TT). Method Two groups of novice (n = 10) and experienced cyclists (n = 10) performed a 10-mile self-paced TT on two separate occasions during which a number of feedback variables (speed, distance, power output, cadence, HR, and time) were projected within their view. A large RPE scale was also presented next to the projected information and participants. Participants were fitted with a head-mounted eye tracker and HR monitor. Results Experienced cyclists performed both TT quicker than novices (F1,18 = 6.8, P = 0.018) during which they primarily looked at speed (9 of 10 participants), whereas novices primarily looked at distance (6 of 10 participants). Experienced cyclists looked at primary information for longer than novices across the whole TT (24.5% ± 4.2% vs 34.2% ± 6.1%; t18 = 4.2; P < 0.001) and less frequently than novices during the last quarter of the TT (49 ± 19 vs 80 ± 32; t18 = −2.6; P = 0.009). The most common combination of primary and secondary information looked at by experienced cyclists was speed and distance, respectively. Looking at 10 different primary–secondary feedback permutations, the novices were less consistent than the experienced cyclists in their information acquisition behavior. Conclusions This study challenges the importance placed on knowledge of the endpoint to pacing in previous models, especially for experienced cyclists for whom distance feedback was looked at secondary to, but in conjunction with, information about speed. Novice cyclists have a greater dependence on distance feedback, which they look at for shorter and more frequent periods than the experienced cyclists. Experienced cyclists are more selective and consistent in attention to feedback during TT cycling.

Influence of visual illusion and attentional focusing instruction in motor performance

The present study examined the individual and combined influences of two factors that have been shown to benefit motor performance: an external focus of attention and the visual context of a target being aimed for. In a within-subjects design participants completed golf putts using control (C), internal (IN) and external (EX) attentional focus (AF) instructions under target-based visual illusion (perceptually larger (PLT) versus smaller (PST) targets) conditions. Twenty-six novice golfers completed six putts in each counterbalanced condition. Mean radial accuracy (cm) was calculated. Through the use of surrounding distracting visual stimulus, an Ebbinghaus illusion aimed to induce PLT or PST during putting. Verbal instruction directed attention to C (no specific focus), IN (arm movements) or EX (movement effect focus) focuses prior to execution. The Ebbinghaus illusions significantly altered perceived target size. Significant main effects indicated: (1) greater accuracy in EX (PLT: 27.32 vs. PST 31.46 cm) vs. IF (30.50 vs. 39.82 cm) and C (32.11 vs. 36.97 cm); (2) accuracy was benefited when putting towards the PLT vs. PST. No AF × Illusion interaction was evident. Performance was independently affected by AF and target visual context (e.g. perceived target size), suggesting different mechanisms in motor execution: instructions influence the control of movement whereas the target conditions inform motor planning through perceptual and motivational variables.

Further evidence against eye–hand coordination as a general ability

A number of companies are marketing general eye–hand coordination training devices, which are purported to enhance performance on the device and in a sporting domain. An act comprising eye–hand coordination involves the complex combination of a number of distinct functions, and an investigation of what tasks share this common factor has not been completed. There is also a lack of evidence investigating the interrelationship between different tests to assess eye–hand coordination using these devices. A number of different eye–hand coordination abilities, rather than one common factor, could potentially underpin any range of tasks involving eye–hand coordination and visual stimuli. Therefore, the present study investigated the theoretical assumption upon which such eye–hand coordination training devices are based, that is, whether eye–hand coordination is a general ability. Eighty-seven currently active sportspeople (age: 18.6 ± 0.9 years; 58 males and 29 females) completed four tests of eye–hand coordination: three laboratory tasks (the Sports Vision Trainer™; Batak Pro™; and Graded Pegboard) and a field task (wall catch test). Intercorrelations between the tasks ranged from weak to strong, but the percentage of shared variance was typically low. Overall, the results do not support the existence of a common eye–hand coordination ability underpinning the performance on general eye–hand coordination training devices. Consequently, coaches and sport scientists should be aware that training on general eye–hand coordination training devices is unlikely to transfer to sporting performances. Instead, practitioners are encouraged to explore sport-specific assessment and training of eye–hand coordination.