↓ Skip to main content

Prospective versus predictive control in timing of hitting a falling ball

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
Prospective versus predictive control in timing of hitting a falling ball
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, November 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00221-011-2954-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiromu Katsumata, Daniel M. Russell

Abstract

Debate exists as to whether humans use prospective or predictive control to intercept an object falling under gravity (Baurès et al. in Vis Res 47:2982-2991, 2007; Zago et al. in Vis Res 48:1532-1538, 2008). Prospective control involves using continuous information to regulate action. τ, the ratio of the size of the gap to the rate of gap closure, has been proposed as the information used in guiding interceptive actions prospectively (Lee in Ecol Psychol 10:221-250, 1998). This form of control is expected to generate movement modulation, where variability decreases over the course of an action based upon more accurate timing information. In contrast, predictive control assumes that a pre-programmed movement is triggered at an appropriate criterion timing variable. For a falling object it is commonly argued that an internal model of gravitational acceleration is used to predict the motion of the object and determine movement initiation. This form of control predicts fixed duration movements initiated at consistent time-to-contact (TTC), either across conditions (constant criterion operational timing) or within conditions (variable criterion operational timing). The current study sought to test predictive and prospective control hypotheses by disrupting continuous visual information of a falling ball and examining consistency in movement initiation and duration, and evidence for movement modulation. Participants (n = 12) batted a ball dropped from three different heights (1, 1.3 and 1.5 m), under both full-vision and partial occlusion conditions. In the occlusion condition, only the initial ball drop and the final 200 ms of ball flight to the interception point could be observed. The initiation of the swing did not occur at a consistent TTC, τ, or any other timing variable across drop heights, in contrast with previous research. However, movement onset was not impacted by occluding the ball flight for 280-380 ms. This finding indicates that humans did not need to be continuously coupled to vision of the ball to initiate the swing accurately, but instead could use predictive control based on acceleration timing information (TTC2). However, other results provide evidence for movement modulation, a characteristic of prospective control. Strong correlations between movement initiation and duration and reduced timing variability from swing onset to arrival at the interception point, both support compensatory variability. An analysis of modulation within the swing revealed that early in the swing, the movement acceleration was strongly correlated to the required mean velocity at swing onset and that later in the swing, the movement acceleration was again strongly correlated with the current required mean velocity. Rather than a consistent movement initiated at the same time, these findings show that the swing was variable but modulated for meeting the demands of each trial. A prospective model of coupling τ (bat-ball) with τ (ball-target) was found to provide a very strong linear fit for an average of 69% of the movement duration. These findings provide evidence for predictive control based on TTC2 information in initiating the swing and prospective control based on τ in guiding the bat to intercept the ball.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 73 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 24%
Professor 10 13%
Student > Master 10 13%
Researcher 9 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 11%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 14 18%
Sports and Recreations 13 17%
Psychology 11 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 11%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 16 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2021.
All research outputs
#12,879,023
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#1,487
of 3,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,150
of 240,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#16
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,148 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.