| Title |
Exploring the quiet eye in archery using field- and laboratory-based tasks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-017-4988-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claudia C. Gonzalez, Joe Causer, Michael J. Grey, Glyn W. Humphreys, R. Chris Miall, A. Mark Williams |
| Abstract |
The 'quiet eye' (QE)-a period of extended gaze fixation on a target-has been reported in many tasks that require accurate aiming. Longer quiet eye durations (QEDs) are reported in experts compared to non-experts and on successful versus less successful trials. The QE has been extensively studied in the field; however, the cognitive mechanisms underlying the QE are not yet fully understood. We investigated the QEDs of ten expert and ten novice archers in the field and in the laboratory using a computer-based archery task. The computer task consisted of shooting archery targets using a joystick. Random 'noise' (visual motion perturbation) was introduced at high and low levels to allow for the controlled examination of the effects of task complexity and processing demands. In this computer task, we also tested an additional group of ten non-archers as controls. In both field and computer tasks, eye movements were measured using electro-oculography. The expert archers exhibited longer QED compared to the novice archers in the field task. In the computer task, the archers again exhibited longer QEDs and were more accurate compared to non-archers. Furthermore, expert archers showed earlier QE onsets and longer QEDs during high noise conditions compared to the novices and non-archers. Our findings show skill-based effects on QED in field conditions and in a novel computer-based archery task, in which online (visual) perturbations modulated experts' QEDs. These longer QEDs in experts may be used for more efficient programming in which accurate predictions are facilitated by attention control. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 50% |
| Australia | 2 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 38% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 100 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 19% |
| Unknown | 23 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 33 | 33% |
| Psychology | 13 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 5% |
| Engineering | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 24 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,847,478
of 24,520,187 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#700
of 3,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,641
of 319,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#16
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,520,187 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,360 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 319,707 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.