↓ Skip to main content

Precise timing when hitting falling balls

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Precise timing when hitting falling balls
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00342
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eli Brenner, Ben Driesen, Jeroen B. J. Smeets

Abstract

People are extremely good at hitting falling balls with a baseball bat. Despite the ball's constant acceleration, they have been reported to time hits with a standard deviation of only about 7 ms. To examine how people achieve such precision, we compared performance when there were no added restrictions, with performance when looking with one eye, when vision was blurred, and when various parts of the ball's trajectory were hidden from view. We also examined how the size of the ball and varying the height from which it was dropped influenced temporal precision. Temporal precision did not become worse when vision was blurred, when the ball was smaller, or when balls falling from different heights were randomly interleaved. The disadvantage of closing one eye did not exceed expectations from removing one of two independent estimates. Precision was higher for slower balls, but only if the ball being slower meant that one saw it longer before the hit. It was particularly important to see the ball while swinging the bat. Together, these findings suggest that people time their hits so precisely by using the changing elevation throughout the swing to adjust the bat's movement to that of the ball.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 48 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Researcher 9 18%
Professor 8 16%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 12 24%
Psychology 12 24%
Engineering 7 14%
Neuroscience 7 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 5 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 June 2014.
All research outputs
#7,801,184
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,093
of 7,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,461
of 232,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#130
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 232,367 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.