An occlusion paradigm to assess the importance of the timing of the quiet eye fixation

Abstract

The aim of the study was to explore the significance of the ‘timing’ of the quiet eye (QE), and the relative importance of late (online control) or early (pre-programming) visual information for accuracy. Twenty-seven skilled golfers completed a putting task using an occlusion paradigm with three conditions: early (prior to backswing), late (during putter stroke), and no (control) occlusion of vision. Performance, QE, and kinematic variables relating to the swing were measured. Results revealed that providing only early visual information (occluding late visual information) had a significant detrimental effect on performance and kinematic measures, compared to the control condition (no occlusion), despite QE durations being maintained. Conversely, providing only late visual information (occluding early visual information) was not significantly detrimental to performance or kinematics, with results similar to those in the control condition. These findings imply that the visual information extracted during movement execution – the late proportion of the QE – is critical when golf putting. The results challenge the predominant view that the QE serves only a pre-programming function. We propose that the different proportions of the QE (before and during movement) may serve different functions in supporting accuracy in golf putting.

Keywords:

• On-line control
• pre-programming
• occlusion paradigm
• golf putting

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Chris Ring, Dr David McIntyre, and Dr Andrew Cooke for their assistance with the kinematic and physiological recording equipment and data analysis software.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Six putts were used as a compromise between obtaining a meaningful average and preventing participants from learning to adjust their head and body position to overcome the visual constraints imposed by the occlusion glass. We acknowledge that such an approach increases the influence of extreme values on the average.

2. Due to technical errors and calibration issues with the eye tracker and club-head accelerometer, data were lost for some participants. As such these participants were not included in the analysis of QE duration (n = 8) and club-head acceleration (n = 2; see degrees of freedom in ANOVA).

3. The percentage of putts holed was also analysed. While these data were in the same direction as the mean radial error, these differences did not reach significance [F(2, 52) = 2.13, p = .130,  = .08].