Matching Items (2)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

155315-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
In baseball, the difference between a win and loss can come down to a single call, such as when an umpire judges force outs at first base by typically comparing competing auditory and visual inputs of the ball-mitt sound and the foot-on-base sight. Yet, because the speed of sound in

In baseball, the difference between a win and loss can come down to a single call, such as when an umpire judges force outs at first base by typically comparing competing auditory and visual inputs of the ball-mitt sound and the foot-on-base sight. Yet, because the speed of sound in air only travels about 1100 feet per second, fans observing from several hundred feet away will receive auditory cues that are delayed a significant portion of a second, and thus conceivably could systematically differ in judgments compared to the nearby umpire. The current research examines two questions. 1. How reliably and with what biases do observers judge the order of visual versus auditory events? 2. Do observers making such order judgments from far away systematically compensate for delays due to the slow speed of sound? It is hypothesized that if any temporal bias occurs it is in the direction consistent with observers not accounting for the sound delay, such that increasing viewing distance will increase the bias to assume the sound occurred later. It was found that nearby observers are relatively accurate at judging if a sound occurred before or after a simple visual event (a flash), but exhibit a systematic bias to favor visual stimuli occurring first (by about 30 msec). In contrast, distant observers did not compensate for the delay of the speed of sound such that they systematically favored the visual cue occurring earlier as a function of viewing distance. When observers judged simple visual stimuli in motion relative to the same sound burst, the distance effect occurred as a function of the visual clarity of the ball arriving. In the baseball setting, using a large screen projection of baserunner, a diminished distance effect occurred due to the additional visual cues. In summary, observers generally do not account for the delay of sound due to distance.
ContributorsKrynen, R. Chandler (Author) / McBeath, Michael (Thesis advisor) / Homa, Donald (Committee member) / Gray, Robert (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
147686-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

When a sports performance is at its peak, it is akin to a musical performance in the sense that each player seems to perform their part effortlessly, creating a rhythmic flow of counterparts all moving as one. Rhythm and timing are vital elements in sports like basketball in which syncopated

When a sports performance is at its peak, it is akin to a musical performance in the sense that each player seems to perform their part effortlessly, creating a rhythmic flow of counterparts all moving as one. Rhythm and timing are vital elements in sports like basketball in which syncopated passing and shooting appear to facilitate accuracy. This study tests if shooting baskets “in rhythm,” as measured by the catch-to-release time, reliably enhances shooting accuracy. It then tests if an “in rhythm” timing is commonly detected and agreed upon by observers, and if observer timing ratings are related to shooting accuracy. Experiment 1 tests the shooting accuracy of two amateur basketball players after different delays between catching a pass and shooting the ball. Shots were taken from the three-point line (180 shots). All shots were recorded and analyzed for accuracy as a function of delay time, and the recordings were used to select stimuli varying in timing intervals for observers to view in Experiment 2. In Experiment 2, 24 observers each reviewed 17 video clips of the shots to test visual judgment of shooting-in-rhythm. The delay times ranged from 0.3 to 3.2 seconds, with a goal of having some of the shots taken too fast, some close to in rhythm, and some too slow. Observers rated if each shot occurs too fast, in rhythm slightly fast, in rhythm slightly slow, or too slow. In Experiment 1, shooters exhibited a significant cubic fit with better shooting performance in the middle of the timing distribution (1.2 sec optimal delay) between catching a pass and shooting. In Experiment, 2 observers reliably judged shots to be in rhythm centered at 1.1 ± 0.2 seconds, which matched the delay that leads to optimal performance for the shooters found in Experiment 1. The pattern of findings confirms and validates that there is a common “in rhythm” catch-to-shoot delay time of a little over 1 second that both optimizes shooter accuracy and is reliably recognized by observers.

ContributorsFlood, Cierra Elizabeth (Author) / McBeath, Michael (Thesis director) / Corbin, William (Committee member) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / College of Integrative Sciences and Arts (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05