Gaze control during interceptive actions with different spatiotemporal demands.

Abstract

It is widely accepted that the sources of information used to guide interceptive actions depend on conflicting spatiotemporal task demands. However, there is a paucity of evidence that shows how information pick-up during interceptive actions is adapted to such conflicting constraints. The present study therefore examined the effects of systematic manipulations of spatiotemporal constraints on performance, timing and gaze in an in situ interceptive action. To this end, expert futsal goalkeepers faced penalty kicks taken from 10 m and 6 m. With the more lenient spatiotemporal constraints (i.e., kicks from 10 m), the goalkeepers saved more kicks, initiated their actions later, and looked longer toward ball relative to the penalty takers' body. Furthermore, analysis of gaze patterns showed that interindividual variations in information pick-up were related to the unfolding of the penalty taker's action, revealing a less variable, funnel-like gaze pattern toward the end of the action. These findings are interpreted to reflect that changes in spatiotemporal demands induce the differential use of information for the accurate control of interceptive actions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Height After Side: Goalkeepers Detect the Vertical Direction of Association-Football Penalty Kicks From the Ball Trajectory

“…Moreover, the low predictive value of the kinematics of the kicks with respect to height seems to make the use of trajectory information the better option. Consistent with the previous findings, Navia et al (2017) showed that for 6 and 10 meters futsal penalty kicks the average start of hand movements toward the ball trajectory started 188 and 212 ms after ball contact respectively. These results allow the possibility of guiding the hands toward the vertical direction of the ball using ball trajectory information.…”

“…Less is known about the gaze behavior during the ball flight. Although they considered a different sport, for the ball flight phase it is tempting to consider the above-mentioned study on futsal by Navia et al (2017). These authors showed that, for 6 and 10 m penalty kicks, during the run-up futsal goalkeepers frequently fixate the body of the penalty taker.…”

Goalkeeping in the soccer penalty kick

“…Notably, the goalkeepers tended to start after the required time exceeded the available time (i. e., they waited too long, that is, until after required velocity had exceeded maximum velocity). Still, the two goalkeepers who made the most saves were closest to their action boundary, although not all proficient goalkeepers acted close to their action boundary (see also Navia et al, 2017). This suggests that these goalkeepers were not optimally calibrated.…”

“…However, this early information is less adaptive, and the longer before ball-contact, the more loosely it is coupled to the resulting ball trajectory (Franks & Harvey, 1997;Diaz, Fajen, & Phillips, 2012;Lopes, Jacobs, Travieso, & Araújo, 2014). This presents goalkeepers with conflicting requirements (Navia, Dicks, van der Kamp, & Ruiz, 2017). They may wait long to exploit the specifying information from ball-flight.…”

“…Navia et al (2017) manipulated ball-flight duration by having penalty takers take kicks from different distances. They found that goalkeepers adapted to the different temporal constraints by directing gaze more often Review to the ball and waiting longer in the case of prolonged ball-flight durations.…”