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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AldersonG. J. K.SullyD. J.SullyH. G. (1974) An operational analysis of a one-handed catching task using high-speed photography. Journal of Motor Behavior, 6, 217–226.
2.
BennettS.Van Der KampJ.SavelsberghG. J. P.DavidsK. (in press) Timing a one-handed catch: I. Effects of telestereoscopic viewing. Experimental Brain Research.
3.
BootsmaR. J.Van WieringenP. W. C. (1990) Timing an attacking forehand drive in table tennis. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 16, 21–29.
4.
CollewijnH.ErkelensC. J. (1990) Binocular eye movements and the perception of depth. In KowlerE. (Ed.), Eye movements and their role in visual and cognitive processes. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Pp. 213–261.
5.
FielderA. R.MoseleyM. J. (1996) Does stereopsis matter in humans?Eye, 10, 233–238.
6.
HeuerH. (1993) Estimates of time to contact based on changing size and changing target vergence. Perception, 22, 549–563.
7.
JonesR. K.LeeD. N. (1981) Why two eyes are better than one: The two views of binocular vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 30–40.
8.
JudgeS. J.BradfordC. M. (1988) Adaptation to telestereoscopic viewing measured by one-handed ball-catching performance. Perception, 17, 783–802.
9.
KlukaD. A. (1987) Looking to improve volleyball techniques. Coaching Volleyball, October/November, 14–17.
10.
LaurentM.MontagneG.DureyA. (1996) Binocular invariants in interceptive tasks: A directed perception approach. Perception, 25, 1437–1450.
11.
LeeD. N. (1976) A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception, 5, 437–459.
12.
LeeD. N.ReddishP. E.RandD. T. (1991) Aerial docking by hummingbirds. Naturwissenschaften, 78, 526–527.
13.
LeeD. N.YoungD. (1985) Visual timing in interceptive actions. In IngleD. J.JeannerodM.LeeD. N. (Eds.), Brain mechanisms and spatial vision. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. Pp. 1–30.
14.
LeeD. N.YoungD. S.ReddishP. E.LoughS.ClaytonT. M. H. (1983) Visual timing in hitting an accelerating bail. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A, 333–346.
15.
McLeodP.McLaughlinC.Nimmo-SmithI. (1986) Information encapsulation and automaticity: Evidence from the visual control of finely timed actions. In PosnerM. I.MarinO. S. (Eds.), Attention and performance II. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 391–406.
16.
MichaelsC. F. (1986) An ecological analysis of binocular vision. Psychological Research, 48, 1–22.
17.
PattersonR.MartinW. L. (1992) Human stereopsis. Human factors, 34, 669–692.
18.
PeperL.BootsmaR. J.MestreD. R.BakkerF. C. (1994) Catching balls: How to get the hand to the right place at the right time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 591–612.
19.
ReganD. (1997) Visual factors in hitting and catching. Journal of Sports Sciences, 15, 533–558.
20.
ReganD.BeverlyK.CynaderM. (1979) The visual perception of motion in depth. Scientific American, 241, 136–151.
21.
SavelsberghG. J. P.WhitingH. T. A. (1992) The acquisition of catching under monocular and binocular conditions. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24, 320–328.
22.
SavelsberghG. J. P.WhitingH. T. A.BootsmaR. J. (1991) ‘Grasping Tau’!Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 315–322.
23.
SavelsberghG. J. P.WhitingH. T. A.BurdenA. M.BartlettR. M. (1992) The role of predictive visual temporal information in the coordination of muscle activity in catching. Experimental Brain Research, 89, 223–228.
24.
ServosP.GoodaleM. A. (1998) Monocular and binocular control of human imerceptive movements. Experimental Brain Research, 119, 92–102.
25.
TresilianJ. R. (1995) Perceptual and cognitive processes in time-to-contact estimation: Analysis of prediction-motion and relative judgment tasks. Perception & Psychopbysics, 57, 231–245.
26.
TresilianJ. R. (1997) Revised tau hypothesis: A consideration of Wann's (1996) analyses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1272–1281.
27.
Van Der KampJ.BennettS.SavelsberghG. J. P.DavidsK. (in press) Timing a one-handed catch: II. Adaptation to telestereoscopic viewing. Experimental Brain Research.
28.
Van Der KampJ.SavelsberghG. J. P.SmeetsJ. B. (1997) Multiple information sources in imerceptive timing. Human Movement Sciences, 16, 787–821.
29.
Von HofstenC.RosengrenK.PickH. L.NeelyG. (1992) The role of binocular information in ball catching. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24, 329–338.
30.
WannJ. P. (1996) Anticipating arrival: Is the tau margin a specious theory?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1031–1048.
31.
WannJ. P.RushtonS. (1995) Grasping the impossible: Stereoscopic virtual balls. In BardyB. G.BootsmaR. J.GuiardY. (Eds.), Studies in perception and action III. London: Erlbaum. Pp. 207–210.
