Catching fly balls: A simulation study of the Chapman strategy

Kistemaker, Dinant A.; Faber, Herre; Beek, Peter J.

doi:10.1016/j.humov.2008.11.001

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7 This way of thinking has meanwhile been empirically corroborated in sports research; see e.g Michaels and Oudejans (1992),McLeod and Dienes (1993). andKistemaker et al (2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Enactive intersubjectivity: Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current theories of social cognition are mainly based on a representationalist view. Moreover, they focus on a rather sophisticated and limited aspect of understanding others, i.e. on how we predict and explain others' behaviours through representing their mental states. Research into the 'social brain' has also favoured a third-person paradigm of social cognition as a passive observation of others' behaviour, attributing it to an inferential, simulative or projective process in the individual brain. In this paper, we present a concept of social understanding as an ongoing, dynamical process of participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. This process may be described (1) from a dynamical agentive systems point of view as an interaction and coordination of two embodied agents; (2) from a phenomenological approach as a mutual incorporation, i.e. a process in which the lived bodies of both participants extend and form a common intercorporality. Intersubjectivity, it is argued, is not a solitary task of deciphering or simulating the movements of others but means entering a process of embodied interaction and generating common meaning through it. This approach will be further illustrated by an analysis of primary dyadic interaction in early childhood.

show abstract

“…7 This way of thinking has meanwhile been empirically corroborated in sports research; see e.g Michaels and Oudejans (1992),McLeod and Dienes (1993). andKistemaker et al (2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Enactive intersubjectivity: Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would entail adaptations of the running speed, of course, but the OAC strategy still works (cf. Tresilian, 1995;Kistemaker, Faber, & Beek, 2009). Note the difference between the side view of the ball trajectory (which is a parabola) and the appearance on an image plane.…”

Section: Problem and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtual Reality as a Tool for the Study of Perception-Action: The Case of Running to Catch Fly Balls

Zaal

Bootsma

2011

Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virtual reality (VR) holds great promise for the study of perception-action. The case of studying the outfielder problem is presented as an example of how VR has contributed to our understanding of perception-action, and of the potential and pitfalls of using VR in such a task. The outfielder problem refers to the situation in a baseball game (and analogous situations) in which an outfielder has to run to get to the right location at the right time to make a catch. Several experimental studies are discussed in which participants had to intercept real or virtual balls. The biggest added value of using VR is the fact that the virtual world is completely in the hands of the experimenter, which allows studying situations that do not exist outside of VR, thus enabling strong hypothesis testing. A number of factors related to the success of the VR experiments are identified, such as the lack of haptic feedback in VR setups used in this paradigm until now, the specifics of the optics presented to the participants, and the available space for locomotion. We argue that it is important to make a close comparison of task behavior in VR with that outside of VR, but conclude having great expectations of the role of VR in perception-action research. IntroductionIn this contribution we address the potential of virtual reality technologies to contribute to the elucidation of the behavioral control strategies underlying perception-action coupling. Because control strategies are task specific (Bootsma, 1998;Warren, 1988) we focus on a particular type of problem: moving so as to intercept a ball before it hits the ground. This paradigmatic problem not only exemplifies the ongoing theoretical debate on how our interactions with dynamic environments are organized, but also boasts a significant body of past and current experimental research, using both real and computer-generated environments. While the discussion is limited to the particular problem under scrutiny, it allows the potential and pitfalls of using virtual reality (VR) to emerge within the setting of a well-identified scientific problem.Observation of behavior under ''natural'' conditions allows checking whether the observed behavior is compatible with the predictions that can be made from a particular hypothesis. This kind of reality check is not only useful but also necessary if we want to ascertain that experimentation in a particular (laboratory) setting generalizes to the terrain of natural behavior. However, as we shall argue

show abstract

“…For large prey, the frogs appeared to ignore differences in prey velocity and instead chose kinematic strategies based on prey shape. It is possibly relevant that humans, such as frogs, are adept at intercepting relatively small objects, such as soccerballs, baseballs (Kistemaker et al, 2009), or pingpong balls. However, humans are notably deficient at avoiding collisions with large objects, such as freight trains, perhaps as a result of differences in the ability to estimate the velocity of large and small objects (Cohn and Nguyen, 2003).…”

Section: Alternative Strategies For Capturing Prey In the New Hollandmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prey capture in frogs: alternative strategies, biomechanical trade‐offs, and hierarchical decision making

Monroy

Nishikawa

2011

J. Exp. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frogs exhibit flexible repertoires of prey-capture behavior, which depend primarily on visual analysis of prey attributes. We review three examples of how visual cues are used to modulate prey-capture strategies. (1) Dyscophus guineti modulates tongue aiming in response to prey location. These frogs turn only their heads to apprehend prey located at azimuths o401. At azimuths 4401, the frogs switch from this strategy to one in which both head and tongue are aimed toward prey. (2) Rana pipiens modulates its feeding behavior in response to prey size, using tongue prehension for capturing small prey but switching to jaw prehension to capture large prey. (3) In Cyclorana novaehollandiae, visual processing of prey attributes involves hierarchical decision making. These frogs first assess prey size. For large prey, they ignore velocity but not shape. For small prey, they ignore shape but not velocity. Alternative prey-capture strategies are associated with biomechanical trade-offs that result from the interaction between the feeding apparatus and varying attributes of prey. Alternative strategies likely exist because biomechanical constraints prevent any one strategy from being effective over a range of prey attributes. Taken together, these studies emphasize the requirement that predators must somehow tune prey-capture kinematics simultaneously to multiple attributes of prey. In frogs, the choice among alternative prey-capture strategies involves a hierarchical decision-making process. Hierarchical decision making is expected to be widespread among animals. However, no previous studies were found except for humans, who frequently use this type of approach to make complex decisions.

show abstract

Catching fly balls: A simulation study of the Chapman strategy

Cited by 16 publications

References 19 publications

Enactive intersubjectivity: Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation

Enactive intersubjectivity: Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation

Virtual Reality as a Tool for the Study of Perception-Action: The Case of Running to Catch Fly Balls

Prey capture in frogs: alternative strategies, biomechanical trade‐offs, and hierarchical decision making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About