BACKGROUND: Head tracking movements are common in interceptive tasks. The benefits of these movements are unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare coincidence anticipation timing (CAT) responses for a simulated approaching object when the eyes were used in tracking the object and when the head was used in tracking the object. METHODS: A total of 29 subjects participated. A Bassin Anticipation Timer consisting of a track of sequentially illuminated lights was used to simulate an approaching object at velocities of 223 cm · s-1 to 894 cm · s-1. Each velocity was used 10 times under 2 conditions. In one condition, subjects were told to turn the eyes with the stimulus. In the other condition, subjects viewed the stimulus through apertures and were told to turn the head with the stimulus. Subjects pushed a button to coincide with illumination of the final light on the track. RESULTS: Signed CAT errors, unsigned CAT errors, and variable CAT errors were compared between the head movement (HM) and eye movement (EM) conditions. No significant differences were noted for the signed errors (mean signed error at 894 cm · s-1; 10.3 ± 75.4 ms (HM), -16.1 ± 51.0 ms (EM). However, the unsigned and variable errors were significantly larger at some stimulus velocities in the head movement condition [mean unsigned error at 894 cm · s-1: 82.6.0 ± 45.9 ms (HM), 59.0 ± 22.4 ms (EM); mean variable error at 894 cm · s-1; 78.0 ± 37.8 ms (HM), 49.2 ± 17.1ms (EM)].DISCUSSION: Head movement did not result in improved CAT performance compared to eye movements. Further work will be required to determine whether these results are generalizable to situations where head tracking is required but apertures are not worn.Ross E, Kinney M, Fogt N. Coincidence anticipation timing responses with head tracking and eye tracking. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2022; 93(2):79-88.
BACKGROUND: Head tracking movements are common in interceptive tasks. The benefits of these movements are unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare coincidence anticipation timing (CAT) responses for a simulated approaching object when the eyes were used in tracking the object and when the head was used in tracking the object. METHODS: A total of 29 subjects participated. A Bassin Anticipation Timer consisting of a track of sequentially illuminated lights was used to simulate an approaching object at velocities of 223 cm · s-1 to 894 cm · s-1. Each velocity was used 10 times under 2 conditions. In one condition, subjects were told to turn the eyes with the stimulus. In the other condition, subjects viewed the stimulus through apertures and were told to turn the head with the stimulus. Subjects pushed a button to coincide with illumination of the final light on the track. RESULTS: Signed CAT errors, unsigned CAT errors, and variable CAT errors were compared between the head movement (HM) and eye movement (EM) conditions. No significant differences were noted for the signed errors (mean signed error at 894 cm · s-1; 10.3 ± 75.4 ms (HM), -16.1 ± 51.0 ms (EM). However, the unsigned and variable errors were significantly larger at some stimulus velocities in the head movement condition [mean unsigned error at 894 cm · s-1: 82.6.0 ± 45.9 ms (HM), 59.0 ± 22.4 ms (EM); mean variable error at 894 cm · s-1; 78.0 ± 37.8 ms (HM), 49.2 ± 17.1ms (EM)].DISCUSSION: Head movement did not result in improved CAT performance compared to eye movements. Further work will be required to determine whether these results are generalizable to situations where head tracking is required but apertures are not worn.Ross E, Kinney M, Fogt N. Coincidence anticipation timing responses with head tracking and eye tracking. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2022; 93(2):79-88.
Authors: Ítalla Maria Pinheiro Bezerra; Tânia Brusque Crocetta; Thais Massetti; Talita Dias da Silva; Regiani Guarnieri; Cassio de Miranda Meira; Claudia Arab; Luiz Carlos de Abreu; Luciano Vieira de Araujo; Carlos Bandeira de Mello Monteiro Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 1.889