Keeping an Eye on Noisy Movements: On Different Approaches to Perceptual-Motor Skill Research and Training

Abstract

Contemporary theorizing on the complementary nature of perception and action in expert performance has led to different emphases in the study of movement coordination and gaze behavior. On the one hand, coordination research has examined the role of variability in movement control, evidencing that variability facilitates individualized adaptations during both learning and performance. On the other hand, and at odds with this principle, the majority of gaze behavior studies have tended to average data over participants and trials, proposing the importance of universal ‘optimal’ gaze patterns in a given task, for all performers, irrespective of stage of learning. In this article, we discuss new lines of inquiry with the aim of reconciling these two distinct approaches. We consider the role of inter- and intra-individual variability in gaze behaviors and suggest directions for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Aglioti SM, Cesari P, Romani M, et al. Action anticipation and motor resonance in elite baskbetball players. Nat Neurosci. 2008;11(9):1109–16.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Chemero A. Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Davids K, Bennett S, Newell KM, editors. Movement system variability. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Dicks M, Button C, Davids K. Examination of gaze behaviors under in situ and video simulation task constraints reveals differences in information pickup for perception and action. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010;72(3):706–20. doi:10.3758/APP.72.3.706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Causer J, Bennett S, Holmes PS, et al. Quiet eye duration and gun motion in elite shotgun shooting. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(8):1599–608.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Savelsbergh GJP, van Gastel PJ, van Kampen PM. Anticipation of penalty kicking direction can be improved by directing attention through perceptual learning. Int J Sport Psychol. 2010;41(1):24–41.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Handford C, Davids K, Bennett S, et al. Skill acquisition in sport: some application of an evolving practice ecology. J Sports Sci. 1997;15:621–40.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Michaels CF, Carello C. Direct perception. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Savelsbergh GJP, Williams AM, van der Kamp J, et al. Visual search, anticipation and expertise in soccer goalkeepers. J Sports Sci. 2002;20(3):279–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Dicks M, Davids K, Button C. Representative task designs for the study of perception and action in sport. Int J Sport Psychol. 2009;40(4):506–24.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Huys R, Smeeton NJ, Hodges NJ, et al. On the dynamic information underlying visual anticipation skill. Percept Psychophys. 2008;70(1):1217–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Lopes JE, Jacobs DM, Travieso D, et al. Predicting the lateral direction of deceptive and non-deceptive penalty kicks in football from the kinematics of the kicker. Hum Mov Sci. 2014;36:199–216. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2014.04.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Vickers JN. Visual control when aiming at a far target. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1996;22(2):342–54.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Vickers JN. Perception, cognition, and decision training: the quiet eye in action. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Gonzalez CC, Causer J, Miall RC, et al. Identifying the causal mechanisms of the quiet eye. Eur J Sport Sci. 2015. doi:10.1080/17461391.2015.1075595.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Rienhoff R, Tirp J, Strauss B, et al. The ‘quiet eye’ and motor performance: a systematic review based on Newell’s constraints-led model. Sports Med. 2016;46:589–603. doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0442-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Klostermann A, Kredel R, Hossner EJ. The quiet eye without a target: the primacy of visual information processing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2013;40(6):2167–78. doi:10.1037/a0038222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Vine SJ, Lee D, Moore LJ, et al. Quiet eye and choking: online control breaks down at the point of performance failure. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(10):1988–94. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31829406c7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Najemnik J, Geisler WS. Optimal eye movement strategies in visual search. Nature. 2005;434:387–91. doi:10.1038/nature03390.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Vine SJ, Moore LJ, Wilson MR. Quiet eye training facilitates competitive putting performance in elite golfers. Front Psychol. 2011;2(8):1–9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00008.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Klostermann A, Vater C, Kredel R, et al. Perceptual training in beach volleyball defence: different effects of gaze-path cueing on gaze and decision-making. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1–13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Land MF. Eye movements and the control of actions in everyday life. Prof Retin Eye Res. 2006;25:296–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Hayhoe M. Vision using routines: a functional account of vision. Vis Cogn. 2000;7:43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Fehd HM, Seiffert AE. Eye movements during multiple object tracking: where do participants look? Cognition. 2008;108:201–9. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Zelinsky GJ, Neider MB. An eye movement analysis of multiple object tracking in a realistic environment. Vis Cogn. 2008;16(5):553–66. doi:10.1080/13506280802000752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kanai R, Rees G. The structural basis of inter-individual differences in human behaviour and cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011;12:231–42.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Speelman CP, McGann M. How mean is the mean? Front Psychol. 2013;4:1–12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Mann DTY, Williams AM, Ward P, et al. Perceptual cognitive expertise in sport: a meta-analysis. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2007;29:457–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Thelen E. Development as a dynamic system. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1992;1(6):189–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Newell KM, Liu YT, Mayer-Kress G. Time scales in motor learning and development. Psychol Rev. 2001;108(1):57–82. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.108.1.57.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Seifert L, Button C, Davids K. Key properties of expert movement systems in sport: an ecological dynamics perspective. Sports Med. 2013. doi:10.1007/s40279-012-0011-z.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Latash ML. The bliss (not the problem) of motor abundance (not redundancy). Exp Brain Res. 2012;217:1–5. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3000-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Müller H, Sternad D. Decomposition of variability in the execution of goal-oriented tasks: three components of skill improvement. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2004;30(1):212–33. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.30.1.212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Newell KM, Mayer-Kress G, Liu YT. Human learning: power laws or multiple characteristic time scales? Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2006;2(2):66–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Loeb GE. Optimal isn’t good enough. Biol Cybern. 2012;106:757–65. doi:10.1007/s00422-012-0514-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Rein R, Davids K, Button C. Adaptive and phase transition behavior in performance of discrete multi-articular actions by degenerate neurobiological systems. Exp Brain Res. 2010;201:307–22. doi:10.1007/s00221-009-2040-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Hamill J, van Emmerik REA, Heidersheit BV, Li L. A dynamical systems approach to lower extremity running injuries. Clin Biomech. 1999;14(5):297–308. doi:10.1016/S0268-0033(98)90092-4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Bernstein NA. The control and regulation of movements. London: Pergamon Press; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, et al. Coordination changes in a discrete multi-articular action as a function of practice. Acta Psychol. 2008;127:163–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Bril B, Rein R, Nonaka T, et al. The role of expertise in tool use: skill differences in functional action adaptations to task constraints. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010;36(4):825–39. doi:10.1037/a0018171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Newell KM, Liu YT, Mayer-Kress G. Learning in the brain-computer interface: insights about degrees of freedom and degeneracy from a landscape model of motor learning. Cogn Process. 2005;6:37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Brison TA, Claude A. Should common optimal movement patterns be identified as the criterion to be achieved. J Mot Behav. 1996;28(3):211–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Frank TD, Michelbrink M, Beckmann H, et al. A quantitative dynamical systems approach to differential learning: self-organization principals and order parameter equations. Biol Cybern. 2008;98:19–31.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Hong SL, Newell KM. Practice effects on local and global dynamics of the ski-simulator task. Exp Brain Res. 2006;169:350–60.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Edelman GM, Gally JA. Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98(24):13763–8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Anderson ML. Neural reuse: a fundamental organizational principles of the brain. Behav Brain Sci. 2010;33:245–313. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000853.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Royal KA, Farrow D, Mujika I, et al. The effects of fatigue on decision making and shooting skill performance in water polo players. J Sports Sci. 2006;24(8):807–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Price CJ, Friston KJ. Degeneracy and cognitive anatomy. Trends Cogn Sci. 2002;6(10):416–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Croft J, Button C, Dicks M. Visual strategies of sub-elite cricket batsmen in response to different ball velocities. Hum Mov Sci. 2010;29(5):751–63.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Mann DL, Spratford W, Abernethy B. The head tracks and gaze predicts: how the world’s best batters hit a ball. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e58289. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058289.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Mann DTY, Coombes SA, Mousseau MB, et al. Quiet eye and the Bereitschaftspotential: visuomotor mechanisms of expert motor performance. Cogn Process. 2011;12:223–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Chia JS, Chow JY, Kawabata M, et al. An exploratory analysis of quiet eye duration within and between levels of expertise. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2016. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2015.1114503.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Savelsbergh GJP, van der Kamp J, Oudejans RR, et al. Perceptual learning is mastering perceptual degrees of freedom. In: Williams AM, Hodges NJ, editors. Skill acquisition in sport: research, theory and practice. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis; 2004. p. 374–389.

  54. 54.

    de Oliveira RF, Oudejans RRD, Beek PJ. Gaze behavior in basketball shooting: further evidence for online visual control. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2008;79(3):399–404.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Oudejans RRD, van de Langenberg RW, Hutter RI. Aiming at a far target under different viewing conditions: visual control in basketball jump shooting. Hum Mov Sci. 2002;21:457–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    de Oliveira RF, Oudejans RRD, Beek PJ. Late information pick up is preferred in basketball jump shooting. J Sports Sci. 2006;24:933–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Button C, MacLeod M, Sanders R, et al. Examining movement variability in the basketball free-throw action at different skill levels. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2003;74(3):257–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Mullineaux DR, Uhl TL. Coordination-variability and kinematics of misses versus swishes of basketball free throws. J Sports Sci. 2010;28(9):1017–24. doi:10.1080/02640414.2010.487872.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Bootsma RJ, van Wieringen PCW. Timing an attacking forehand drive in table tennis. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1990;16(1):21–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Dicks M, Button C, Davids K. Availability of advance visual information constrains association-football goalkeeping performance during penalty kicks. Perception. 2010;39:1111–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Navia JA, Dicks M, van der Kamp et al. Gaze control during interceptive actions with different spatiotemporal demands. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2016 (under review).

  62. 62.

    Button C, Dicks M, Haines R, et al. Statistical modelling of gaze behaviour as categorical time series: what you should watch to save soccer penalties. Cogn Process. 2011;12:235–44. doi:10.1007/s10339-010-0384-6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Huet M, Jacobs DM, Camachon C, et al. The education of attention as explanation of variability of practice effects: learning the final approach phase in a flight simulator. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011;37(6):1841–54. doi:10.1037/a0024386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Andrieux M, Proteau L. Observation learning of a motor task: who and when? Exp Brain Res. 2013;229(1):125–37. doi:10.1007/s00221-013-3598-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Dicks M, van der Kamp J, Withagen R, et al. Can we hasten expertise by video simulations? Considerations from an ecological psychology perspective. Int J Sport Psychol. 2015;45(6):109–29. doi:10.7352/IJSP2015.46.000.

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Cumming G. The new statistics: why and how. Psychol Sci. 2014;25(1):7–29. doi:10.1177/0956797613504966.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matt Dicks.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review.

Conflict of interest

Matt Dicks, Chris Button, Keith Davids, Jia Yi Chow, and John van der Kamp have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dicks, M., Button, C., Davids, K. et al. Keeping an Eye on Noisy Movements: On Different Approaches to Perceptual-Motor Skill Research and Training. Sports Med 47, 575–581 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0600-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Movement Coordination
  • Solution Manifold
  • Water Polo Player
  • Penalty Taker
  • Skilled Performer