The difference between athletes and nonathletes on the performance of a multiple-object tracking (MOT) task was examined. Participants were 17 national professional volleyball athletes and 20 age-matched nonathletes who were university students and attended basic volleyball training classes. Across trials, the number of distractors and the color and form of the targets were manipulated. A negative correlation was observed between the number of distractors and participants' reaction time. Further, all participants responded faster when the target color changed during a trial than when it remained consistent. Athletes had faster reaction time than nonathletes independent of the number of distractors or target manipulation. Male athletes also had faster overall reaction time than female athletes. The implications of these findings for athletic training are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlaserE.PylyshynZ. W.HolcombeA. O. (2000) Tracking an object through feature space. Nature, 408, 196–199.
2.
DoganB. (2009) Multiple-choice reaction and visual perception in female and male elite athletes. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 49, 91–96.
3.
GreenC. S.BavelierD. (2003) Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature, 423, 534–537.
4.
GreenC. S.BavelierD. (2006a) Effect of action video games on the spatial distribution of visuospatial attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1465–1478.
5.
GreenC. S.BavelierD. (2006b) Enumeration versus multiple object tracking: the case of action video game players. Cognition, 101, 217–245.
6.
KimM. S.CaveK. R. (1999) Grouping effects on spatial attention in visual search. The Journal of General Psychology, 26, 326–352.
7.
KioumourtzoglouE.MichalopoulouM.TzetzisG.KourtessisT. (2000) Ability profile of the elite volleyball player. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 757–770.
8.
KokubuM.AndoS.KidaN.OdaS. (2006) Interference effects between saccadic and key-press reaction times of volleyball players and nonathletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 103, 709–716.
9.
LavieN. (2006) The role of perceptual load in visual awareness. Brain Research, 1080, 91–100.
10.
LenzenB.BrouwersM.DejardinR. (2004) Comparative study of coach-athlete interactions in mixed traditional Japanese martial art, female amateur track and field, and male professional basketball. Psychology, 35, 77–90.
11.
LiaoY.ZhangX.GeC-H. (2004) Performance of athletes in a visual multiple-object tracking task. Journal of Xian Sport College, 21, 105–108. [in Chinese].
12.
MarkA. W.EricssonK. A. (2005) Perceptual-cognitive expertise in sport: some considerations when applying the expert performance approach. Human Movement Science, 24, 283–307.
13.
MartellS. G.VickersN. (2004) Gaze characteristics of elite and near-elite athletes in ice hockey defensive tactics. Human Movement Science, 16, 689–712.
14.
McAuliffeJ. (2004) Differences in attentional set between athletes and nonathletes. Journal of General Psychology, 131, 426–437.
15.
NothdurftH. C. (2000) Salience from feature contrast: variations with texture density. Vision Research, 40, 3181–3200.
16.
PanchukD.VickersJ. N. (2006) Gaze behaviors of goaltenders under spatial-temporal constraints. Human Movement Science, 25, 733–752.
17.
PesceC.CasellaR.CapranicaL. (2004) Modulation of visuospatial attention at rest and during physical exercise: gender differences. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 35, 328–341.
18.
PylyshynZ. W. (1998) Visual indexes in spatial vision and imagery. In WrightR. D. (Eds.), Visual attention. New York: Oxford Univer. Press. Pp. 215–231.
19.
PylyshynZ. W. (1999) Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 341–423.
20.
PylyshynZ. W. (2004) Some puzzling findings in multiple object tracking (MOT): I. Tracking without keeping track of object identities. Visual Cognition, 11, 801–822.
RiesenhuberM. (2004) An action video game modifies visual processing. Trends in Neurosciences, 27, 72–74.
23.
SearsC. R.PylyshynZ. W. (2000) Multiple object tracking and attention processing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 1–14.
24.
ThomsonK.WattA.LiukkonenJ. (2008) Skill-related differences between athletes and nonathletes in speed discrimination. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 107, 893–900.
25.
von MühlenenA.MüllerH. (1999) Visual search for motion-form conjunctions: selective attention to movement direction. The Journal of General Psychology, 126, 289–317.
26.
WatsonD. G.HumphreysG. W. (1997) Visual marking: prioritizing selection for new objects by top down attentional inhibition of old objects. Psychological Review, 104, 90–122.
27.
WolfeJ. M. (1998) What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search?Psychological Science, 9, 33–39.
YantisS.JohnsonD. N. (1990) Mechanisms of attentional priority. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 812–825.
30.
ZhangX.HeL.LiY.GaoY. (2005) Distractive effect of multiple object tracking performance. Journal of Chinese Clinical Recovery, 9, 155–158. [in Chinese].
31.
ZhangX.ShuH. (2002) Multiple objects tracking in visual search and its implications on human computer interface (HCl) design. Proceedings of the 5th Asia Pacific Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, 11, 453–460.
