Ecological Relevance of Stereopsis in One-Handed Ball-Catching

The aim of this study was to compare one-handed catching performance between catchers with high (n = 10) and low (n=10) binocular depth vision or stereopsis. In two sessions of 90 trials, tennis balls were projected at three different velocities towards the subject's shoulder region. Participants with good stereopsis were more successful, although the difference in number of correct catches fell short of significance. More specifically, catchers with low stereopsis made more temporal errors, but no differences in spatial errors. As the velocity of the ball increased, the initiation of the catch was delayed and catching performance decreased. The finding that stereopsis affected timing of the catch challenges the ‘monocular tau hypothesis' in the control of interceptive timing, while the velocity effect shows that the act of catching a ball is not initiated at a constant time-to-contact.

[1]  G J Savelsbergh,et al.  The acquisition of catching under monocular and binocular conditions. , 1992, Journal of motor behavior.

[2]  M. Moseley,et al.  Does stereopsis matter in humans? , 1996, Eye.

[3]  Jeroen B. J. Smeets,et al.  Multiple information sources in interceptive timing , 1997 .

[4]  R. Patterson,et al.  Human Stereopsis , 1992, Human factors.

[5]  David N. Lee,et al.  A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision , 1976, Perception.

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

[7]  R. Bootsma,et al.  Timing an attacking forehand drive in table tennis. , 1990 .

[8]  David N. Lee,et al.  Visual Timing in Hitting An Accelerating Ball , 1983, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[9]  J. Tresilian,et al.  Perceptual and cognitive processes in time-to-contact estimation: Analysis of prediction-motion and relative judgment tasks , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  C. Michaels.  An ecological analysis of binocular vision , 1986, Psychological research.

[11]  James R. Tresilian,et al.  Revised tau hypothesis : A consideration of Wann's (1996) analyses , 1997 .

[12]  Rebecca K. Jones,et al.  Why two eyes are better than one: The two views of binocular vision. , 1981 .

[13]  Alain Durey,et al.  Binocular Invariants in Interceptive Tasks: A Directed Perception Approach , 1996 .

[14]  S. Judge,et al.  Adaptation to Telestereoscopic Viewing Measured by One-Handed Ball-Catching Performance , 1988, Perception.

[15]  S Bennett,et al.  Timing a one-handed catch. I. Effects of telestereoscopic viewing. , 1999, Experimental brain research.

[16]  David N. Lee,et al.  Visual Timing of Interceptive Action , 1985 .

[17]  M. A. Goodale,et al.  Monocular and binocular control of human interceptive movements , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[18]  H. Heuer,et al.  Estimates of Time to Contact Based on Changing Size and Changing Target Vergence , 1993, Perception.

[19]  M. Cynader,et al.  The visual perception of motion in depth. , 1979, Scientific American.

[20]  Judge Sj,et al.  Adaptation to telestereoscopic viewing measured by one-handed ball-catching performance. , 1988 .

[21]  J. Wann.  Anticipating arrival: is the tau margin a specious theory? , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  F. C. Bakker,et al.  Catching balls: how to get the hand to the right place at the right time. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  Daniel Mestre,et al.  Catching balls: How to get the hand to the right place at the right time. , 1994 .

[24]  G. J. K. Alderson,et al.  An operational analysis of a one-handed catching task using high speed photography. , 1974, Journal of motor behavior.

[25]  H L Pick,et al.  The role of binocular information in ball catching. , 1992, Journal of motor behavior.