Differences in Visuospatial Expertise between Skeet Shooting Athletes and Non-Athletes

Background: Sports vision is a specialisation of optometry whose objective is to improve and preserve visual function to increase sports performance. The main objective of the present study was to compare the visual expertise of non-athletes to skeet shooting athletes. Methods: Participants underwent an optometric assessment in which all those with severe deviations from normal vision, after compensating for visual abnormalities, were eliminated. After that, the following six visuospatial components were measured: hand–eye coordination, peripheral awareness, fixation disparity, saccadic eye movements, speed of recognition and visual memory. To measure the aforementioned components, the following tests were used: directional arrows, similar and different characters, the dichromatic disparity test, character marking, a tachistoscopic test and tic-tac-toe using COI-vision software. Results: Skeet shooting athletes performed significatively better (p ≤ 0.05) in two out of the six tests: hand–eye coordination and visual memory. Conclusions: Although this study does not support the theory that athletes—in this case, skeet shooting athletes—perform significantly better in most components of the visuospatial tests, visual memory and hand–eye coordination are exceptions. To be more accurate in distinguishing between athletes and non-athletes, specific testing methods that can be used by a wide variety of disciplines should be developed. Training the weakest aspects of athletes can improve their sports performance.

Vergence accuracy in an autostereoscopic display

When fixating an object, observers typically under or over-converge by a small amount, a phenomenon known as "fixation disparity". Fixation disparity is typically measured with physical fixation targets and dichotically presented nonius lines. Here we made fixation disparity measurements with an autostereoscopic display, varying the retinal eccentricity and disparity of the fixation targets. Measurements were made in a group of four practiced observers and in a group of thirteen experimentally naïve observers. Fixation disparities with a zero-disparity target were in the direction of fixation behind the plane of the screen and the magnitude of the fixation disparity grew with the eccentricity of the fixation targets (1-5 deg in the practiced observers and 1 – 10 deg in the naïve observers). Fixation disparity also increased with increasing disparity of the targets, especially when they were presented at crossed disparities. Fixation disparities were larger overall for naïve observers who additionally did not converge in front of the screen when vergence demand was created by crossed disparity fusion locks presented at 5 and 10 deg eccentricities.

Effects of aiming lines and visual function on the golf putting alignment

Background: In golf, a player hits a ball with a club, aiming to transfer the ball successively into a series of hole cups in a course consisting of 18 (or fewer) holes. This study aimed to compare the impact of visual function and the presence and number of aiming lines on golf putting alignment between beginner and expert golfers. Methods: In this prospective comparative study, 43 participants with a mean ± standard deviation (SD) of corrected distance binocular visual acuity of –0.07 ± 0.74 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, who knew their average golf scores, were divided into beginner and expert golfers. Six visual function tests were conducted to assess heterotropia, dominant eye, verification of current spectacles, static visual acuity, stereopsis, and fixation disparity. At the putting distances of 1.5 m and 3 m, alignment errors were measured five times each, using golf balls with 1 and 3 aiming line(s) and putters with 1 and 3 aiming line(s). Results: The mean ± SD of age was 48.33 ± 10.07 years for study participants overall. The accuracy of ball alignment was not affected by the career or number of aiming lines, but the putter alignment was higher for the 3-lines putter than for the 1-line putter (P < 0.05). When the number and shape of the aiming line were the same for both the ball and putter, the aiming accuracy was found to be higher. In both stereopsis and fixation disparity, the combination of putting distance and a 3-lines ball showed negative values; all other combinations showed positive values, but no statistically significant correlation was detected (all P > 0.05). Conclusions: The accuracy of golf ball alignment did not depend on the number of aiming lines and the golfer’s career. However, the predicted putting success rate and subjective satisfaction were increased when three-line golf balls and putters were used, as compared to when one-line golf balls and putters were used. How to cite this article: Kim YJ, Jin YG, Koo BY, Jang JU, Mah KC. Effects of aiming lines and visual function on the golf putting alignment. Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Optom.2021 Spring; 2(1): 41-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51329/mehdioptometry124

Do standard optometric measures predict binocular coordination during reading?

In reading, binocular eye movements are required for optimal visual processing and thus, in case of asthenopia or reading problems, standard orthoptic and optometric routines check individual binocular vision by a variety of tests. The present study therefore examines the predictive value of such standard measures of heterophoria, accommodative and vergence facility, AC/A-ratio, NPC and symptoms for binocular coordination parameters during reading. Binocular eye movements were recorded (EyeLink II) for 65 volunteers during a typical reading task and linear regression analyses related all parameters of binocular coordination to all above-mentioned optometric measures: while saccade disconjugacy was weakly predicted by vergence facility (15% explained variance), vergence facility, AC/A and symptoms scores predicted vergence drift (31%). Heterophoria, vergence facility and NPC explained 31% of fixation disparity and first fixation duration showed minor relations to symptoms (18%). In sum, we found only weak to moderate relationships, with expected, selective associations: dynamic parameter related to optometric tests addressing vergence dynamics, whereas the static parameter (fixation disparity) related mainly to heterophoria. Most surprisingly, symptoms were only loosely related to vergence drift and fixation duration, reflecting associations to a dynamic aspect of binocular eye movements in reading and potentially non-specific, overall but slight reading deficiency. Thus, the efficiency of optometric tests to predict binocular coordination during reading was low – questioning a simple, straightforward extrapolation of such test results to an overlearned, complex task.

How reliably do eye parameters indicate internal vs. external attentional focus?

Eye behavior is increasingly used as indicator of internal vs. external focus of attention both in research and application. However, available findings are partly inconsistent, which might be attributed to the different nature of the employed types of internal and external cognition tasks. The present study, therefore, investigated how consistently different eye parameters respond to internal versus external attentional focus across three task modalities: numerical, verbal, and visuo-spatial. Three eye parameters robustly differentiated between internal and external attentional focus across all tasks. Blinks, pupil diameter variance and fixation disparity variance were consistently increased during internally directed attention. We also observed substantial attentional focus effects on other parameters (pupil diameter, fixation disparity, saccades and microsaccades), but they were moderated by task type. Single-trial analysis of our data using machine learning techniques further confirmed our results: Classifying the focus of attention by means of eye tracking works well across participants, but generalizing across tasks proves to be challenging. Based on the effects of task type on eye parameters, we discuss what eye parameters are best suited as indicators of internal vs. external attentional focus in different settings.