Turning up the variable noise: the quiet eye, functional variability and advancements in perceptual cognitive expertise

Background: It has now become widely accepted that a prominent component of sport expertise is in part due to more effective, and efficient perceptual mechanisms. In comparison to lesser-skilled athletes, experts can identify key sources of information earlier (Helsen and Pauwels, 1993). With the introduction of the Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules within the English Football League System, the development of young players has increased in prominence, with a greater emphasis on the understanding of what it takes to become an expert. The Quiet Eye (QE) has emerged as a key perceptual variable associated with expertise (Vickers, 2007). The QE is defined as the final fixation towards a location in the environment that supports a coupled motor action. The QE is a fixation that lasts over 100ms, remaining within 3* of visual angle (Vickers, 2016). In the field of Goalkeeping (GK) the QE has been found to be one of the key mechanisms in understanding skilled performance (Piras and Vickers, 2011). It is widely accepted that expert performance is generally contrived of longer QE fixations, earlier and later offsets, yet the locations GK’s use is still contested. As such current experimental protocols fail to truly understand expert performance of individuals in more complex environments. Objectives: Theoretical and empirical attempts are made to meet an ecological ‘call to arms’ and challenge the traditional perceptual research in goalkeeping. The importance of maintaining a representative experimental trial is stressed to understand expertise from the natural performance environment. Secondly, youth and senior GK of similar relative skill level are used to understand QE behaviours between ages in a representatively designed experimental task. Methods: Study 1 compares the traditional penalty kick protocol with a 1 v 1 dynamic condition, where the striker can move the ball before shooting at the goal. Study 2 compares expert senior goalkeepers against youth goalkeepers in the dynamic task to understand QE differences between ages with relative skill levels. QE behaviour is collected with SMI-ETG as well as an external camera capturing the motor action of the goalkeeper. Results: In study 1, QE duration was significantly longer in the penalty kick trial, with an earlier onset and later offset. Further findings also showed goalkeepers dependence upon the ball in penalty kick tasks. Goalkeepers viewed the visual pivot (VP) more during dynamic kick tasks than in the penalty kick task. 7 | P a g e In study 2 senior goalkeepers had a longer QE duration and a later onset and offset than the youth goalkeepers. Specific QE behaviours could be attributed with specific locations, the ball requiring longer onset and duration than the VP. It was observed without statistical significance that senior expert goalkeepers operated within a solution bandwidth comprised of variability in QE behaviour. Discussion: It is suggested a more representative performance environment is required due to the causal nature of manipulated task constraints, and the QE. It was shown that by increasing variability in the experimental condition, goalkeepers utilised different QE behaviours. The significance of these findings aids researchers understanding of expertise and the link to representative tasks and their fidelity to the athlete’s natural environment. Previous research understanding in goalkeeping expertise in the penalty kick paradigm may only provide a minor insight into goalkeepers skilled performance. In the second study, we find that similar to the novice v expert domain, senior and youth experts have significantly different QE behaviours. Senior goalkeepers used longer fixations, later onsets and offsets. The later onsets are a particularly interesting finding, as it generally goes against the grain of previous QE research. We suggest that the later onset is a product of extreme temporal and spatial constraints that youth goalkeepers face. They potentially may not have the physical capabilities to move on later visual information, whereas senior goalkeepers may do. Secondly, it is suggested that expertise comes in the form of a functional relationship with information in the visual feed. Due to significant differences occurring in the QE between different locations (ball and visual pivot), it is recommended that the use of putative optimal visual search patterns is irresponsible and that athletes define their expertise by a complimentary relationship with the environment. Further still, it is shown that experts act within a solution manifold characterised by variability between the QE onset and offset behaviours. Developing this finding across bigger samples is key, as it provides ground to challenge current developments of QE training methods that opt for a single generalisable QE behaviour. We provide an account for the importance of adopting a practical lens to developing the QE beyond novel visual interventions, and into an embodied pedagogy.

Grantor dc:publisher

Oxford Brookes University

Year dc:date

2018

Author dc:creator

• Franks, Benjamin

Statement dc:rights

• All rights reserved

Language dc:language

en

DOI dc:identifier

https://doi.org/10.24384/s94d-gr80

OAI identifier oai:identifier

tle:f9c3d4fd-e074-4eae-a40d-ade00c331fc1:d6bd9758-527a-46cd-bfe2-c433766e8fca:1