Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25793989›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Gaze behavior in one-handed catching and its relation with interceptive performance: what the eyes can't tell.

Benedetta Cesqui, Maura Mezzetti, Francesco Lacquaniti, Andrea d'Avella

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Perceptual-Cognitive Integration for Goal-Directed Action in Naturalistic Environments.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Vertical head and eye movements in baseball batting.Optometry & visual performance · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Benedetta CesquiLaboratory of Neuromotor Physiology, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy; Centre of Space Bio-medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Maura MezzettiDepartment of Economics and Finance, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Francesco LacquanitiLaboratory of Neuromotor Physiology, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy; Centre of Space Bio-medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy; Department of Systems Medicine, Neuroscience Section, University of Rome, Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Andrea d'AvellaLaboratory of Neuromotor Physiology, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy; Department of Biomedical Sciences and Morphological and Functional Images, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
University of Rome Tor Vergata · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In ball sports, it is usually acknowledged that expert athletes track the ball more accurately than novices. However, there is also evidence that keeping the eyes on the ball is not always necessary for interception. Here we aimed at gaining new insights on the extent to which ocular pursuit performance is related to catching performance. To this end, we analyzed eye and head movements of nine subjects catching a ball projected by an actuated launching apparatus. Four different ball flight durations and two different ball arrival heights were tested and the quality of ocular pursuit was characterized by means of several timing and accuracy parameters. Catching performance differed across subjects and depended on ball flight characteristics. All subjects showed a similar sequence of eye movement events and a similar modulation of the timing of these events in relation to the characteristics of the ball trajectory. On a trial-by-trial basis there was a significant relationship only between pursuit duration and catching performance, confirming that keeping the eyes on the ball longer increases catching success probability. Ocular pursuit parameters values and their dependence on flight conditions as well as the eye and head contributions to gaze shift differed across subjects. However, the observed average individual ocular behavior and the eye-head coordination patterns were not directly related to the individual catching performance. These results suggest that several oculomotor strategies may be used to gather information on ball motion, and that factors unrelated to eye movements may underlie the observed differences in interceptive performance.

Indexed as

Eye MovementsHandPsychomotor PerformanceAdultAlgorithmsFemaleHead MovementsHumansMaleModels, TheoreticalYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25793989
PMCPMC4368737
OpenAlexW2158078761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.