Catching fly balls in virtual reality: A critical test of the outfielder problem

Abstract

How does a baseball outfielder know where to run to catch a fly ball? The “outfielder problem” remains unresolved, and its solution would provide a window into the visual control of action. It may seem obvious that human action is based on an internal model of the physical world, such that the fielder predicts the landing point based on a mental model of the ball’s trajectory (TP). But two alternative theories, Optical Acceleration Cancellation (OAC) and Linear Optical Trajectory (LOT), propose that fielders are led to the right place at the right time by coupling their movements to visual information in a continuous “online” manner. All three theories predict successful catches and similar running paths. We provide a critical test by using virtual reality to perturb the vertical motion of the ball in mid-flight. The results confirm the predictions of OAC, but are at odds with LOT and TP.

Chasin’ choppers: using unpredictable trajectories to test theories of object interception

“…Two other studies that experimentally manipulated object trajectories in midflight were done by Fink, Foo, andWarren (2009) andMcLeod et al (2008). McLeod et al (2008) showed that GOAC was able to account for the optical trajectories observed for soccer ball interception ("headers").…”

“…1 Fink et al (2009) performed a virtual reality test of people chasing baseballs where the direction of the ball was changed in midflight. They concluded that the nonsegmented version of LOT could not explain the perturbed trajectories, while OAC (and thus, GOAC) could (Fink et al, 2009).…”

Efficacy of a Virtual Environment for Training Ball Passing Skills in Rugby

“…There is a great deal of interest in training sporting skills using virtual environments (VEs), for example handball [1], [2], tennis [3], [4], [5], golf [6], [7], [8], baseball [9], [10], [11], cycling [12] and swimming [13]; and discussion concerning the validity of VEs as a training tool for a wide array of different activities [14], [15], [16]. The discussions focus on the possibility of detrimentally affecting the user by teaching a new skill incorrectly or spoiling a skill the user already possesses by providing a training platform that lacks vital cues or provides superficial cues that are not present in the real world.…”

Emergent perception–action couplings regulate postural adjustments during performance of externally-timed dynamic interceptive actions

“…Action fidelity is a particularly important methodological issue, given the growing use of virtual environments within research and training contexts (e.g. Fink, Foo, & Warren, 2009;Chan, Leung, Tang, & Komura, 2011;Vignais et al, 2009) Data on adaptations to postural regulation behaviors and the kinematics of the catching arm in the three conditions suggested that the catching action was 'nested' on the task of postural regulation (see Riccio & Stoffregen, 1988). This coordination strategy reduced the number of system degrees of freedom that the CNS needed to regulate in an "umbrella" control strategy, with posture being dependent on the task being performed.…”