Trial reportPloS one2020
Does the combination of different pitches and the absence of pitch type information influence timing control during batting in baseball?
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceptable range of timing error at bat-ball impact in baseball depends on the bat swing path.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Simplified Virtual Reality System Can Be Used to Evaluate the Temporal Discrimination Ability in Softball Batting as in the Real Environment.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Baseball pitchers use various pitch types to reduce hitting accuracy, but little is understood of the practical strategy of using visuomotor skills and timing control to respond to different pitches. This study examined 1) effectiveness of pitch type combinations, and 2) relationship between the presence and absence of advance information about the next pitch and the timing error. Twenty-six high school baseball players hit a ball launched from a pitching machine in a combination of fastballs (34.3±1.3 m·s-1), curveballs (25.4±1.0 m·s-1), and slowballs (25.5±0.9 m·s-1). Each participant performed three conditions. (1) Continuity condition (15 trials), in which the same pitch type was thrown five times consecutively. (2) Random condition (30 trials), in which pitch type was not preliminarily conveyed to the participants. (3) Open condition (20 trials), in which the next pitch type was preliminarily conveyed to participants. Participants' hitting movement was recorded by an optical motion capture system and force platform. We calculated timing error based on the difference between the measured impact location (ball position relative to the batter's body at ball-bat impact) and optimal impact location. The timing error between n-th pitch type, (n-1)-th pitch, and the presence or absence of advance information about pitch type (open vs random condition) were analyzed using three-way repeated ANOVA. The results showed that the (n-1)-th pitch type did not affect the timing of impact (p = 0.338). In contrast, the timing errors in open conditions were fewer compared to random conditions (p < 0.001). These results indicate that the pitch type sequence has insignificant effects, and advance information about pitches affects the timing errors. Therefore, having two or more pitch types, reducing the fluctuation of the pitching motion, and the early trajectory of the ball between different pitches potentially lead to increase timing errors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.