Quiet eye training aids the long-term learning of throwing and catching in children: Preliminary evidence for a predictive control strategy

Abstract

Quiet eye training (QET) may be a more effective method for teaching children to catch than traditional training (TT) methods, but it is unclear if the benefits accrued persist in the long term. Thirty children were randomly allocated into a QET or TT group and, while wearing a mobile eye tracker, underwent baseline testing, training and two retention tests over a period of eight weeks, using a validated throw and catch task. During training, movement-related information was provided to both groups, while the QET group received additional instruction to increase the duration of their targeting fixation (QE1) on the wall prior to the throw, and pursuit tracking (QE2) period on the ball prior to catching. In both immediate (R1) and delayed (R2, six weeks later) retention tests, the QET group had a significantly longer QE1 duration and an earlier and longer QE2 duration, compared to the TT group, who revealed no improvements. A performance advantage was also found for the QET compared to the TT group at both R1 and R2, revealing the relatively robust nature of the visuomotor alterations. Regression analyses suggested that only the duration of QE1 predicted variance in catch success post-training, pointing to the importance of a pre-programming visuomotor strategy for successful throw and catch performance.

Keywords:

• Throwing
• catching
• prediction
• aiming
• online control
• skill

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

G. WOOD http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0851-7090

Notes

1. Note that this is a totally different sample to that used in Miles et al. (2014).

2. Participants in Miles et al.’s (2014) QET group did not receive any technical instructions, leading to suggestions from a reviewer that the training advantage for the QET group may have simply been due to the advantages of an external focus of attention, compared to an internal focus of attention (see Wulf, 2013). In the current study the QET group received the same technical (internally focused) instructions as the TT group in addition to their gaze instructions.

3. In Miles et al. (2014), the ball release was suggested as the final movement; however, other research in throwing (Klostermann, Koedijker et al., 2013; Klostermann, Kredel et al., 2013) has adopted the foreswing of the arm as being more reflective of pre-planning the throw.

4. On trials when no catch was made, trial end was determined when the ball contacted the participant's hands or any part of their body, when the ball contacted another surface (e.g. bounced), or when it crossed the throw line.

5. Note that all these analyses were performed on the collapsed sample to provide a wider range of results for comparison, and more power.

6. Note that a more sensitive measure of catching technique based on an 11; point rating scale (see Miles et al., 2014, 2015) revealed a similar interaction effect; F_2,56 = 4.66, p = 0.01,  = 0.14. Again, there were no significant differences in the catching technique of the TT group throughout the tests (p’s > 0.54), however, the QET group significantly improved their technique from BL to R1 (mean difference = 1.25, p < 0.01) and from BL to R2 (mean difference = 1.81, p < 0.01).

Additional information

Funding

This study was part of a larger project that was funded by The Waterloo Foundation (TWF 1119-1603).