Search

This study examined the effects of focus of attention (FOA) instructions on learning a dart throwing task, quiet eye duration (QED) and pupillary responses. Thirty-six novices (M age ¼ 33.6, SD ¼ 19.7) learned using either (a) internal-focus (arm movement), (b) external-focus (target/dart) or (c) control instructions before completing retention and transfer tests 10 days later. FOA strategies did not significantly benefit dart throwing learning or performance. QED was associated with performance in the transfer task, and pupillary constriction occurred during the QED. The content of FOA instructions may have limited anticipated performance benefits and reduced the FOA influence on QED. Pupillary constriction reflected increased cognitive effort during QED, suggesting an important feature of future precision aiming research.

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.

Objectives: Research has identified experts are typically more efficient in visual search strategies enabling effective processing of environmental information. It has been suggested that examination of the gaze behaviour of golfers engaging in their pre-shot routines alongside their subsequent skill execution is warranted. The aim of this pilot study was to examine differences in green reading behaviour used by novice and expert golfers during varying green complexity in golf putting. Design: Golf putts were completed in three slope conditions; Straight (S), Right to Left (RL), and Left to Right (LR) using a between-participants (Novice v Expert) experimental design. Methods: Fourteen mixed ability golfers (age: 26±9.9 yrs.) were divided equally into expert and novice groups based on handicaps and took ten familiarisation putts on a synthetic putting green. Participants wore a Tobii Glasses mobile eye tracker to record gaze behaviour towards key features (KF) of the putting green. Ten putts were competed in each condition. Results: There was a significant main effect of group (p=0.05) in all conditions with experts typically displaying longer fixation duration, a greater number of total fixations, and a greater number of fixations towards the KF compared to novices. Conclusion: There was evidence to suggest that expert golfers displayed more distinctive gaze behaviours towards KF of the green across all conditions. Experts displayed significantly longer fixation durations on key environmental features prior to shot execution indicating that they are better able to identify and plan movements in relation to putting conditions.

Objectives: Recent research suggests stroboscopic vision training may enhance some aspects of vision perception and attention. The present work investigated whether a stroboscopic training intervention improved Eye-Hand Coordination (EHC) performance using a Sport Vision Trainer (SVT™). Design: EHC training was completed in two conditions; Strobe (SG) vs Control (CG) using a between-participants experimental design. Methods: Sixteen sports participants were assigned to either SG (n = 8) or CG (n = 8) with ability matched across groups. Following a vision and baseline (BL) EHC assessment, SG completed a 10 min training intervention wearing Nike Vapor Strobes®, whilst CG trained without. Post-training retention tests (RT) were administered immediately, 10-min, and 7-days after training. A Visual Search (VS) task was completed prior to training and after 7-days to identify any transfer effects. Results: A 2 (Group) x 3 (Time) RM ANOVA indicated main effect for Group. The SG performed significantly (p < 0.05) quicker in all three RT versus the CG: Immediate (0.97s quicker compared to 0.43s slower than BL), 10-min (0.97s compared to -0.15s), and 7-days-later (0.55s compared to -0.11s) respectively. Significant differences were observed between groups in the VS task (SG = 1.37s compared to CG = -2.01s). Conclusion: A short EHC training session using stroboscopic glasses supports previous research proposing improvements in certain aspects of vision perception. Future research should explore these mechanisms further using different exposure, frequencies, and focused identification of training drills as a complementary EHC intervention.

To examine attentional focusing (AF) instruction mechanisms, the present study observed their novel interaction with a visual illusion environment. Wood et al. (2013) demonstrated longer quiet-eye durations and greater putting accuracy towards perceptually larger targets induced through Ebbinghaus illusion. Importantly, vision is proposed to mediate external focus benefits (e.g., Al-Abood, et al., 2002). De Fockert and Wu (2009) demonstrated that Ebbinghaus illusion effects are greater under high working memory load: greater resource availability supports selective attention efficiency. In line with this, recent AF explanations cite cognitive resources as potential mechanism: an internal focus uses greater working memory processing resources than an external focus (e.g., Poolton, et al., 2006). Would the visual environment interact with the instructional context?

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.