We investigated fencers’ perception of affordances of the opponent by asking them to estimate the reach-ability (length of lunge) of the opponent that varied in height and moved toward them in different paces. Their task was to initiate a backward step at the moment that they perceived to be reached by the opponent in a lunge attack. All trials were recorded by a video camera for data digitizing process and analyses. The results revealed that the opponent’s approaching velocity, but not the opponent’s stature, influenced fencers’ estimates, suggesting that action-related characteristics of the observed person were more influential on perceiver’s perception of affordances of the observed person. Moreover, fencers’ perception of “time-to-contact by the opponent” changed as a function of the opponent’s velocity, suggesting that in the context of combat sports that time-to-contact could be a useful variable for the control of actions when interacting with a moving opponent.
SzaboL. Fencing and the master, Budapest: Corvina Kiado, 1977.
2.
FajenBRRileyMATurveyMT. Information, affordances, and the control of action in sport. Int J Sport Psychol2009; 40: 79–107.
3.
GibsonJJ. The ecological approach to visual perception, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1979.
4.
GibsonJJ. The ecological approach to visual perception, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1986. (Original work published 1979).
5.
StoffregenTAGordayKMShengYY, et al.Perceiving affordances for another person's actions. J Exp Psychol1999; 25: 120–136.
6.
ZaffBSDesigning with affordances in mind. In: FlachJHancockPCairdJ, et al.(eds). Global perspectives on the ecology of human-machine systems, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995, pp. 238–272.
MichaelsCFCarelloMC. Direct perception, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981.
9.
GunnsREJohnstonLHudsonS. Victim selection and kinematics: a point-light investigation of vulnerability to attack. J Nonverbal Behav2002; 26: 129–158.
10.
JohnstonLHudsonSMRichardsonMJ, et al.Changing kinematics as a means of reducing vulnerability to attack. J Appl Soc Psychol2004; 34: 514–537.
11.
ChangCHWadeMGStoffregenTA. Perceiving affordances for aperture passage in an environment-person system. J Motor Behav2009; 41: 495–500.
12.
WeastJAShockleyKRileyMA. The influence of athletic experience and kinematic information on skill – relevant affordance perception. Quarter J Exp Psychol2011; 64: 689–706.
13.
FischerMH. Can we correctly perceive the reaching range of others?Br J Psychol2003; 94: 487–500.
14.
FischerMH. Action simulation for others is not constrained by one’ own postures. Neuropsychologia2005; 43: 28–34.
15.
CesariPFormentiFOlivatoP. A common perceptual parameter for stair climbing for children, young and old adults. Hum Move Sci2003; 22: 111–124.
16.
RochatP. Perceived reachability for self and for others by 3- to 5- year-old children and adults. J Exp Child Psychol. 199; 59: 317–333.
17.
RamenzoniVCRileyMADavisT, et al.Tuning in to another person’s action capabilities: perceiving maximal reach and jump height from walking kinematics. J Exp Psychol2008; 34: 919–928.
18.
WagmanJBStoffregenTABaiJ, et al.Perceiving nested affordances for another person’s actions. Quarter J Exp Psychol2018; 71: 790–799.
19.
TurveyMT. Affordances and prospective control: an outline of the ontology. Ecol Psychol1992; 4: 173–187.
20.
OkumuraMKijimaAYamamotoY. Perception of affordances for striking regulates interpersonal distance maneuvers of intermediate and expert players in kendo matches. Ecol Psychol2017; 29: 1–22.
21.
OkumuraMKijimaAKadotaK, et al.A critical interpersonal distance switches between two coordination modes in kendo matches. PLoS One2012; 7: e51877.
22.
LammCFischerMHDecetyJ. Predicting the actions of others taps into one’s own somatosensory representations – a functional MRI study. Neuropsychologia2007; 45: 2480–2491.
23.
Ramenzoni VC, Riley MA, Davis T, et al. Perceiving whether or not another person can use a step to reach an object. In: Studies in perception and action VIII: thirteenth international conference on perception and action (eds H Heft and KL Marsh) Monterey, CA, USA, 5–10 July, 2005, pp.15–18. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24.
CordovilRBarreirosJ. Adults’ perception of children’s height and reaching capability. Acta Psychol2010; 135: 24–29.
25.
CordovilRBarreirosJ. Egocentric or allocentric frameworks for the evaluation of other people’s reachability. Hum Move Sci2011; 30: 976–983.
26.
LeeDNThe functions of vision. In: Pick JnrHLSaltzmanE (eds). Modes of perceiving and processing information, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 1978, pp. 159–170.
27.
Hecht H and Savelsbergh GJP (eds). Advances in psychology: time-to-contact. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 2004.
28.
ReganDGrayR. Visually guided collision avoidance and collision achievement. Trends in Cogn Sci2000; 4: 99–107.
29.
RushtonSKWannJP. Weighted combination of size and disparity: a computational model for timing a ball catch. Nat Neurosci1999; 2: 186–190.
WannJP. Anticipating arrival: is the tau margin a specious theory?J Exp Psychol1996; 22: 1031–1048.
32.
ChenYHLiuYT. To reach or not to reach? Fencers' perceptions for their reaching range. Int J Sport Psychol2015; 46: 83–94.
33.
TurnerANMarshallGNotoA, et al.Staying out of range: increasing attack distance in fencing. Int J Sports Physiol Perform2017; 12: 1319–1323.
34.
Chu DPK, Zhang BM and Mau K. Simple attack analysis of junior female epee fencers. In: 19th international symposium on biomechanics in sport (ed JR Blackwell), June 20-26 2001, pp. 151–154. Exercise & Sport Science Department, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
