A unified fielder theory for interception of moving objects either above or below the horizon

A unified fielder theory is presented that explains how humans navigate to intercept targets that approach from either above or below the horizon. Despite vastly different physical forces affecting airborne and ground-based moving targets, a common set of invariant perception-action principles appears to guide pursuers. When intercepting airborne projectiles, fielders keep the target image rising at a constant optical speed in a vertical image plane and moving in a constant optical direction in an image plane that remains perpendicular to gaze direction. We confirm that fielders use the same strategies to intercept grounders. Fielders maintained a cotangent of gaze angle that decreases linearly with time (accounting for 98.7% of variance in ball speed) and a linear optical trajectory along an image plane that remains perpendicular to gaze direction (accounting for 98.2% of variance in ball position). The universality of maintaining optical speed and direction for both airborne and ground-based targets supports the theory that these mechanisms are domain independent.

[1]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon , 2001, Nature.

[2]  Dennis M Shaffer,et al.  Naive beliefs in baseball: systematic distortion in perceived time of apex for fly balls. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  B. Saxberg,et al.  Projected free fall trajectories. II. Human experiments. , 1987, Biological cybernetics.

[4]  P. McLeod,et al.  Psychophysics: How fielders arrive in time to catch the ball , 2003, Nature.

[5]  Thomas Sugar,et al.  Intercepting a falling object: digital video robot , 2002, Proceedings 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.02CH37292).

[6]  Thomas Sugar,et al.  Perceptual navigation strategy: a unified approach to interception of ground balls and fly balls , 2003, 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.03CH37422).

[7]  J L Dannemiller,et al.  Role of image acceleration in judging landing location of free-falling projectiles. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  Seville Chapman.  Catching a Baseball , 1968 .

[9]  M K Kaiser,et al.  Response: On Catching Fly Balls , 1996, Science.

[10]  David N. Lee,et al.  Plummeting gannets: a paradigm of ecological optics , 1981, Nature.

[11]  Thomas Sugar,et al.  Robotic modeling of mobile ball-catching as a tool for understanding biological interceptive behavior , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[12]  Scott M Krauchunas,et al.  How Dogs Navigate to Catch Frisbees , 2004, Psychological science.

[13]  Dennis M Shaffer,et al.  Baseball outfielders maintain a linear optical trajectory when tracking uncatchable fly balls. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  Marion A. Eppler,et al.  Development of Visually Guided Locomotion , 1998 .

[15]  Edward Aboufadel.  A Mathematician Catches a Baseball , 1996 .

[16]  M. Lenoir,et al.  Intercepting Moving Objects During Self-Motion. , 1999, Journal of motor behavior.

[17]  An active National Institute of Mental Health. , 1995, Science.

[18]  M. Landy,et al.  Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion , 1995, Vision Research.

[19]  Russell Fish,et al.  Keep your eye on the ball , 1989, SIFN.

[20]  D Regan,et al.  Visual factors in hitting and catching. , 1997, Journal of sports sciences.

[21]  Richard S. Marken,et al.  The dancer and the dance: Methods in the study of living control systems. , 1997 .

[22]  M K Kaiser,et al.  How baseball outfielders determine where to run to catch fly balls. , 1995, Science.

[23]  Terry Bahill,et al.  Keep your eye on the ball : curve balls, kunckleballs, and fallacies of baseball , 2000 .

[24]  Richard S Marken,et al.  Optical trajectories and the informational basis of fly ball catching. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  P. J. Brancazio.  Looking into Chapman’s homer: The physics of judging a fly ball , 1985 .

[26]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[27]  Andrew C. Beall,et al.  Optic Flow and Visual Analysis of the Base-to-Final Turn , 1997 .

[28]  R. Marken,et al.  Controlled variables: psychology as the center fielder views it. , 2001, The American journal of psychology.

[29]  D. Regan,et al.  Visually guided collision avoidance and collision achievement , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[30]  David N. Lee.  Guiding Movement by Coupling Taus , 1998 .

[31]  J E Cutting,et al.  Heading judgments in minimal environments: The value of a heuristic when invariants are rare , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[32]  Brett R Fajen,et al.  Visual Guidance of Intercepting a Moving Target on Foot , 2004, Perception.

[33]  P. McLeod,et al.  Do Fielders Know Where to Go to Catch the Ball or Only How to Get There , 1996 .

[34]  F. C. Bakker,et al.  The effects of baseball experience on movement initiation in catching fly balls. , 1997, Journal of sports sciences.

[35]  William H. Warren,et al.  Optic flow is used to control human walking , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[36]  Thomas Sugar,et al.  Mobile robot interception using human navigational principles: Comparison of active versus passive tracking algorithms , 2006, Auton. Robots.

[37]  P. McLeod,et al.  Running to catch the ball , 1993, Nature.

[38]  Thomas Sugar,et al.  Spatial interception for mobile robots , 2002, Proceedings 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.02CH37292).