ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Predictive and prospective control strategies of elite batters during interception tasks: coupling of perception and action.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mechanisms of Visuomotor Interception.Brain sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Intercepting fast-moving objects, such as during baseball batting, requires the seamless integration of visual perception and motor execution under severe temporal constraints. Although the critical role of visual information in visuomotor coordination is well established, it remains unclear how predictive and prospective control interact when certain phases of visual input are unavailable. This study aimed to elucidate their distinct contributions by examining visuomotor coupling under selectively occluded early and/or late visual information during a time-constrained interception task. Methods: Fifteen skilled collegiate baseball players performed a computerized touchscreen interception task, intercepting a fast-moving stimulus (0.5, 0.67, and 1.0 m/s) at a target area. Stimulus visibility was manipulated across four occlusion conditions (full vision, early occlusion, late occlusion, and both occlusions). Eye and hand movements were recorded simultaneously to analyze gaze behavior, motor performance, and spatiotemporal coupling. Results: All temporal variables shortened as stimulus velocity increased. Under partial occlusion, participants employed distinct compensatory strategies: early occlusion accelerated movement initiation, whereas late occlusion adjusted completion timing. Hand timing error remained unaffected by occlusion, suggesting regulation by an internal timing model independent of immediate visual availability. In contrast, spatial accuracy (radial and spatial coupling errors) markedly declined when early predictive information was unavailable, particularly under both occlusions condition. Conclusion: These findings suggest that successful interception depends on dual control mechanisms-temporal efficiency maintained through flexible compensation and spatial accuracy governed by predictive planning based on early visual information. The concurrent loss of predictive and prospective control critically impairs spatial integration, underscoring the necessity of integrated feedforward-feedback coordination.
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.