Receivers in American Football Use a Constant Optical Projection Plane Angle to Pursue and Catch Thrown Footballs

In the present work we test how well two interceptive strategies, which have been proposed for catching balls hit high in the air in baseball and cricket, account for receivers in American football catching footballs. This is an important test of the domain generality of these strategies as this is the first study examining a situation where the pursuer's locomotor axis is directed away from the origin of the ball, and because the flight characteristics of an American football are far different from targets studied in prior work. The first strategy is to elicit changes in the ball's lateral optical position that match changes in the vertical optical position so that the optical projection plane angle, ψ, remains constant, thus resulting in a linear optical trajectory (LOT). The second is keeping vertical optical ball velocity decreasing while maintaining constant lateral optical velocity (generalized optical acceleration cancellation, or GOAC). We found that the optical projection plane angle was maintained as constant significantly more often than maintaining vertical and lateral optical velocities as GOAC predicted. The present experiment extends previous research by showing that the constancy of ψ resulting in an LOT is used by humans pursuing American footballs and demonstrates the domain generality of the LOT heuristic.

[1]  Claire F. Michaels,et al.  The optics and actions of catching fly balls , 1992 .

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

[3]  W. H. Warren,et al.  Behavioral dynamics of intercepting a moving target , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  J. L. Dannemiller,et al.  On Catching Fly Balls , 1996, Science.

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

[6]  Leonard A. Rozendaal,et al.  Optical acceleration cancellation: a viable interception strategy? , 2003, Biological Cybernetics.

[7]  P. McLeod,et al.  The generalized optic acceleration cancellation theory of catching. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[10]  Nick Reed,et al.  How soccer players head the ball: A test of optic acceleration cancellation theory with virtual reality , 2008, Vision Research.

[11]  D. Regan,et al.  Hitting what one wants to hit and missing what one wants to miss , 2001, Vision Research.

[12]  Seville Chapman Catching a Baseball , 1968 .

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

[14]  Zheng Wang,et al.  A unified fielder theory for interception of moving objects either above or below the horizon , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[15]  Dennis M Shaffer,et al.  Evidence for a generic interceptive strategy , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  R. Kuc Sensorimotor model of bat echolocation and prey capture. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[18]  James A. Simmons,et al.  Interception of Flying Insects by Bats , 1983 .

[19]  Thomas B. Gregory,et al.  How Football Players Determine where to Run to Tackle other Players: A Mathematical and Psychological Description and Analysis , 2009 .

[20]  Padmaja Sankaridurg,et al.  Influence of accommodation on off-axis refractive errors in myopic eyes. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[21]  N Reed,et al.  Toward a unified fielder theory: what we do not yet know about how people run to catch a ball. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  Dennis M Shaffer,et al.  A linear optical trajectory informs the fielder where to run to the side to catch fly balls. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[24]  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.

[25]  R. Olberg,et al.  Prey pursuit and interception in dragonflies , 2000, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

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

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

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

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

[30]  D. A. Grant,et al.  The pseudo-conditioned eye-lid response. , 1943 .

[31]  William H Warren,et al.  Catching fly balls in virtual reality: a critical test of the outfielder problem. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[32]  Igor Dolgov,et al.  Chasin’ choppers: using unpredictable trajectories to test theories of object interception , 2013, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[33]  A. Chardenon,et al.  The visual control of ball interception during human locomotion , 2002, Neuroscience Letters.

[34]  J. Simmons,et al.  Echolocation and pursuit of prey by bats. , 1979, Science.

[35]  P. McLeod,et al.  How to Catch a Cricket Ball , 1993, Perception.

[36]  J A Simmons,et al.  Sonar tracking of horizontally moving targets by the big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus. , 1985, Science.

[37]  Piotr G. Jablonski,et al.  A rare predator exploits prey escape behavior: the role of tail-fanning and plumage contrast in foraging of the painted redstart (Myioborus pictus) , 1999 .