Diferencias en el comportamiento visual y motor de tenistas en laboratorio y en pista de tenis

Abstract

El estudio compara el comportamiento visual y motor de 40 tenistas noveles en laboratorio (2D) y en pista de tenis (3D) cuando visualizan una secuencia de passing-shots ejecutada por un oponente experto desde el fondo de la pista. Los tenistas deben responder rápida y precisamente mediante un armado de volea de derecha o de revés según la dirección del golpeo. Para el registro del comportamiento visual, se utiliza el sistema tecnológico ASL SE 5000, mientras que para el comportamiento motor, se adapta un sistema tecnológico para el entrenamiento de las habilidades motoras abiertas. Las variables dependientes son: el tiempo de fijación visual en cada localización corporal o espacial; el tiempo de reacción y de movimiento, tiempo de respuesta (o suma de las dos variables anteriores), y eficacia de la respuesta. Los resultados evidencian que la muestra de tenistas noveles se fija más en la zona central del cuerpo del oponente (tronco, cadera) y son más rápidos en 2D. En cambio, en 3D se fijan más en la zona superior del oponente (cabeza, hombros). Por lo tanto, los tenistas desarrollan un comportamiento visual y motor diferenciado según perciban el movimiento del oponente de forma videoproyectada o en pista de tenis. Se recomienda diseñar tareas representativas en laboratorio que ofrezcan a los deportistas procesos de percepción y de acción similares a situaciones reales de competición.This study addresses the visual and motor behavior, and success rate, of 40 novice tennis players in a laboratory setting and an on-court situation when viewing a passing-shots rally performed by an expert tennis player located at the back line of the court. The tennis players had to move fast and quickly through forehand or backhand volleys. Visual search strategies were recorded with an ASL SE5000 eye tracking system, and a computerized system was used to analyze the time parameters of the motor response. The dependent variables are the time of visual fixation on the corporal or spatial locations, reaction and movement times, response time (or the sum of the two variables), and success rate of the responses. The results show that the sample of novice players were faster in 2D and fixed more time on the central area of the opponent body (e.g., trunk, hip). Thus, novice players fixed more on the upper body of the opponent (e.g., head, shoulders) in 3D. Therefore, tennis players develop a differentiated visual and motor behavior according to the way they perceive the opponent’s movement, whether in a video projection or on the tennis court. It is recommended to carry out representative tasks in the laboratory to provide perceptive and motor processes similar to real situations.peerReviewe

Visual Behaviours of Expert Padel Athletes When Playing on Court: An In Situ Approach with a Portable Eye Tracker

“…Luis-del Campo et al found that ball-flight trajectory was the visual location with the highest percentage of fixation time when tennis players, located near to the net location, had to simulate a volley for a sequence of video-projected forehand and backhand shots performed by an expert player placed at the backcourt (43.98% for experts and 38.67% for novices of total fixation time) [ 50 ]. Similarly, this ball location was most fixated on by tennis players when returning a passing-shot rally performed by an expert opponent, both in a laboratory setting (62.07% total fixation time) and on a tennis court (58.76% total fixation time) [ 28 ]. Land and McLeod also found that cricket batsmen tracked the ball for between 50% and 80% of the ball trajectory [ 51 ].…”

“…An exception was Singer et al [ 27 ], who found that expert tennis players with better ranking displayed a smooth tracking of the ball after the serve, compared to lower-ranked players, when collecting visual behaviours of participants in situ (i.e., on the tennis court with movement responses). Luis-del Campo et al [ 28 ] compared the visual and motor behaviours of novice tennis players when observing passing shots performed by an expert tennis player located at the back line of the court, both in laboratory and on court. These tennis players developed a differentiated visual behaviour depending on the experimental setting (i.e., they fixated more on the trunk and hip in laboratory and more on the head and shoulders on a court).…”

Research on the specific movement of the head in tennis strokes

“…This study intended to prove if the service is a closed skill, as had been normally commented; but it is quite the opposite according to the results, since if it were closed, it could be performed very well by top level competition players as the participants of the study. Campo et al (2015), whilst studying the visual search, observed and classified the vision of the ball into four phases both in lab conditions and court conditions: A) the ball leaving the ball machine to entering the player's field of vision; B) the moment the ball enters the players field of vision to the bounce; C) from the bounce to shot contact; and D) from the contact to the moment the ball leaves the player's field of vision . The fact that the ball becomes the most important spacial location in all phases (except phase D) highlights the role of the gaze in these phases, in which fixation is based around intercepting the ball, according to some studies of different sports (Lebeau et al, 2016).…”

Exercises to improve the head position in tennis strokes

“…As a player starts fixing your eyes and your head ("gaze"), they start searching for motor solutions to several challenges at the same time, one is stability at impact, and another is maintaining high concentration at the time of impact (including a just before and after), so as not to lose concentration on other aspects such as the target or the position of the opponent. This loss of concentration can be related to the anxiety or stress generated by the importance of a point (subjective to the player) (Luis del Campo, Reina, Sabido, & Moreno, 2015).…”