This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]

On: 31 October 2014, At: 16:17

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports Sciences

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Do generalized visual training programmes

for sport really work? An experimental
investigation
a b
Bruce Abernethy & Joanne M. Wood
a
The University of Queensland
b
Queensland University of Technology
Published online: 01 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Bruce Abernethy & Joanne M. Wood (2001) Do generalized visual training programmes
for sport really work? An experimental investigation, Journal of Sports Sciences, 19:3, 203-222, DOI:
10.1080/026404101750095376

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026404101750095376

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are
the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can
be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Sports Sciences, 2001, 19, 203± 222

Do generalized visual training programmes for sport

really work? An experimental investigation
BRUCE ABERNETHY1* and JOANNE M. WOOD2
1
School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia and School of
Physical Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore and 2Centre for Eye Research, Queensland University
of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Accepted 15 November 2000

Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

We assessed the eþ ectiveness of two generalized visual training programmes in enhancing visual and motor
performance for racquet sports. Forty young participants were assigned equally to groups undertaking visual
training using Revien and Gabor’ s Sports Vision programme (Group 1), visual training using Revien’ s Eyerobics
(Group 2), a placebo condition involving reading (Group 3) and a control condition involving physical practice
only (Group 4). Measures of basic visual function and of sport-speci® c motor performance were obtained
from all participants before and immediately after a 4-week training period. Signi® cant pre- to post-training
diþ erences were evident on some of the measures; however, these were not group-dependent. Contrary to the
claims made by proponents of generalized visual training, we found no evidence that the visual training
programmes led to improvements in either vision or motor performance above and beyond those resulting
simply from test familiarity.

Keywords: perception, racquet sports, training, vision.

Introduction examine experimentally in this study was whether such

programmes really work (in improving both the vision
Sports coaches, performers and scientists are constantly and performance of athletes) or whether the claims
in search of new means to enhance sports performance for their eý cacy in improving sports performance are
and gain a competitive advantage. With diminishing unfounded.
returns in performance gains likely through traditional Most visual training programmes currently used
sport science sub-disciplines such as physiology, bio- by sports optometrists are generalized programmes
mechanics and psychology, there has been increasing adapted directly from pre-existing programmes
interest over the past few decades in the potential con- used in clinical optometry to improve the vision of
tributions of other ® elds and professions. Particularly children, particularly those experiencing reading dif-
active over the past decade have been sports optome- ® culties. These programmes use repetitive eye exercises
trists, who have extended their traditional role in routine (typically to generic alphanumeric stimuli) to try to
visual screening, testing and lens prescription for improve basic visual functions (such as acuity, eye
athletes to the administration of various forms of vision tracking and depth perception) and, through this, sports
therapy or visual training designed to improve sports performance. Despite their growing use, and the strong
performance. The visual training programmes oþ ered claims made by proponents of visual training regarding
by optometrists have strong commercial support, are their eþ ectiveness, the evidence to demonstrate that
marketed with vigour and enthusiasm, are claimed to such programmes can improve both vision in general,
be extremely eþ ective and are being increasingly used by and sports performance in particular, is almost entirely
a large range of athletes. The question we sought to anecdotal and, consequently, subject to bias and
expectancy eþ ects. Several critiques of the sports vision
* Address all correspondence to Bruce Abernethy, School of
literature, both by sports optometrists (e.g. Stine et al.,
Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, 1982; Hazel, 1995) and sport scientists (e.g. Abernethy,
Queensland 4072, Australia. e-mail: [email protected] 1986; Landers, 1988; Herman and Retish, 1989),

Journal of Sports Sciences ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
 204 Abernethy and Wood

have commented on the lack of appropriate empirical of pattern recognition (e.g. Allard et al., 1980) and
evidence upon which to evaluate the claims made in anticipation (e.g. Abernethy and Russell, 1987), which
favour of diþ erent visual training programmes. persist when basic visual function is indistinguishable
The eþ ectiveness of generalized visual training between the diþ erent skill groups (Starkes, 1987;
programmes rests upon three key assumptions: that Helsen and Pauwels, 1993; Abernethy et al., 1994). In
vision is directly related to sports performance (such studies that have reported some signi® cant expert
that sub-normal vision is detrimental to sports per- advantage on one or more general visual function
formance and that supra-normal vision is bene® cial measures, such diþ erences typically accounted for
to sports performance); that key visual attributes for only a very small portion of performance variance (e.g.
sport can be trained; and that improved vision translates Hughes et al., 1993). Collectively, the existing evidence
to improved sports performance. If one of these argues against the assumption of a direct relation-
assumptions is false, then visual training programmes, ship between measures of basic visual function and
of the generalized type currently prescribed, will not sports performance and, consequently, suggests that
bene® t sports performance, at least not through the improving basic visual function is unlikely to lead
putative mechanism of enhancing the visual skills pre- automatically to superior sports performance.
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

requisite to expert performance. Relevant research The second assumption that underpins the use of
exists to examine the truth of some but not all of these generalized visual training programmes for sport is
assumptions. that attributes of basic visual function can be trained.
If the ® rst assumption underpinning visual training is There is now quite convincing evidence to demonstrate
true, then it would be reasonable to expect elite athletes that most commonly measured visual functions can be
to be characterized by better basic visual function and improved through training. Functions that have been
less skilled performers by a greater prevalence of visual shown to improve with repetitive practice include foveal
defects and poorer visual function. Whether or not and peripheral stereoacuity (Fendick and Westheimer,
this is true depends upon how visual skills are de® ned 1983), foveal vernier acuity (McKee and Westheimer,
and, most importantly, measured. Contrary to the 1978), dynamic (Long and Rourke, 1989) and peri-
basic assumption, elite athletes are frequently reported pheral visual acuity (Saugstad and Lie, 1964), con-
to have a surprisingly high incidence of uncorrected trast sensitivity for diagonal gratings (Mayer, 1983),
visual defects (e.g. Garner, 1977) suggesting that below- accommodation (Rouse, 1987), vergence (Daum,
average vision may not necessarily be inconsistent 1982), peripheral motion thresholds (Johnson and
with superior sports performance. This conclusion is Leibowitz, 1974) and visual ® eld size (Wood et al.,
supported by recent evidence from studies on basketball 1987). However, it is not yet clear what type, frequency
free-throw shooting, which demonstrated that even a and distribution of training is best for optimizing the
visual characteristic as apparently fundamental as visual rate of functional improvement in each of these par-
acuity can be degraded quite dramatically (through the ticular visual characteristics.
progressive introduction of blurring) without having any Despite the clear-cut evidence for the training of basic
major impact on motor performance (Applegate and visual attributes, some caution needs to be exercised
Applegate, 1992). Below-normal vision may not be as when extrapolating this evidence to the use of visual
detrimental to sports performance as has traditionally training in athletes. One reason for this caution is that
been thought. many of the reported improvements with visual training
In a similar vein, the weight of available evidence have been in patients with visual defects (American
argues against supra-normal basic visual function Optometric Association, 1988). Because of possible
being necessary for elite sports performance, as expert ceilings for general visual improvement, it does not
performers do not appear to self-select on the basis of necessarily follow that comparable improvements can
superior visual function. Despite some early support for or will occur for people entering a visual training pro-
basic eye factors that may discriminate elite from gramme with normal or above-normal visual function.
less skilled athletes (e.g. Graybiel et al., 1955; Williams A second reason for caution is that, in many instances,
and Thirer, 1975), increasingly the consensus is that the exercises used to train vision are identical to, or
expert and novice athletes are not characterized by dif- simple variants of, the procedures used to test basic
ferences in basic visual function (Starkes and Deakin, visual function. As a result, it is frequently diý cult to
1984; Abernethy, 1987). Rather, the expert’ s advantage ascertain whether pre- to post-training improvements in
appears to be perceptual, related not to basic visual basic visual function are a consequence of a genuine
function but to how domain-speci® c visual information improvement in visual function or merely the eþ ect
is interpreted and used to guide action. of extended practice on the test instrument. Although
Evidence exists for strong and systematic diþ erences the general evidence on the eý cacy of improving basic
between experts and novices on sport-speci® c measures visual function through repetitive practice is promising,
 Visual training 205

there is no speci® c evidence at present to conclude eþ ects or include checks to ensure that attributes of
unequivocally that visual training programmes applied visual function had actually been improved by the
to athletes will necessarily enhance general visual training. In a series of studies comparing performance
performance in the same way as reported in the clinical on selected motor tasks by groups given training using
literature. Revien’ s (1987) Eyerobics visual training programme
The third, largely untested, assumption that under- and a control group given no training, McLeod and
pins generalized visual training programmes for athletes co-workers have claimed support for the bene® ts of
is that any improvements in basic vision achieved visual training in improving static balance and hand±
through training will transfer automatically to improved eye coordination as assessed using manual tracking
sports performance. The assumption of a causal linkage (McLeod and Hansen, 1989a,b; McLeod, 1991). How-
between basic visual function and sports performance is ever, as Cohn and Chaplik (1991) have pointed out, this
at the very heart of the issue of the probable eþ ective- evidence is weak inter alia because of the lack of suitable
ness of generalized visual training. While, as a ® rst placebo controls. Similarly, a recent study by West and
approximation, the assumption of a direct transfer of Bressan (1996) showed some bene® ts of a generalized
improved visual function to improved sports perfor- visual training programme on judgement of ball ¯ ight
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

mance may seem a logical and reasonable one, closer by cricket batsmen, but these bene® ts occurred in the
scrutiny would suggest that this need not be the case. It absence of signi® cant improvements on all but one of
is possible to envisage scenarios in which general visual the visual skills measured. This points strongly to the
function may improve but need not aþ ect sports possibility of performance bene® ts arising through
performance. Such scenarios could arise, for example, mechanisms other than improved basic visual function
if general visual function is not the limiting factor to and again highlights the need to include a suitable
sports performance or if the essential coupling between placebo group.
improved vision and movement production has not In a more recent study, which included a placebo
occurred. Conversely, it is possible to envisage many group as well as a standard control group, Wood and
circumstances in which sports performance may Abernethy (1997) found no evidence of improved visual
improve without concomitant changes in general visual or motor performance in a group receiving 4 weeks of
function (for example, through improved con® dence, visual training using exercises of the type typically used
technique modi® cation or improvements in the by sports optometrists (e.g. see Coþ ey and Reichow,
knowledge base underpinning perception). 1995). These visual training exercises typically involve
In assessing the evidence for the eý cacy of visual greater use of direct optometrist supervision in the
training nearly 20 years ago, Stine et al. (1982, p. 633) training process than the self-help exercises of the type
noted: `That visual training enhances the athlete’ s contained in Eyerobics and related commercial packages.
ability to perform has not been conclusively demon- Of central interest in the present study was to replicate
strated . . . there are no valid, controlled studies that the study by Wood and Abernethy (1997) using com-
prove a positive relationship between visual training mercially available visual training packages, particularly
and athletic performance, nor are there any studies those that have formed the basis of previous, unresolved
that disprove a relationship’ . Since that time, only a few debate in the literature (cf. Cohn and Chaplik, 1991;
additional controlled studies on the eþ ectiveness of McLeod, 1991).
visual training exercises have been reported. Harper The aim of this study was to determine if `self-help’
et al. (1985) compared the visual and motor perfor- visual training programmes that are commercially
mance of groups of ri¯ e and pistol shooters after 2 available can enhance visual performance and, in turn,
weeks of visual training. They found no signi® cant performance on a sport task. The visual and motor
diþ erences in the visual parameters of dynamic visual performance of people trained using the eye exercises
acuity, depth perception and peripheral awareness or for athletes described by Revien and Gabor (1981)
in shooting performance between a group who experi- (Group 1) and the video-based Eyerobics training tape
enced visual training and a control group who were of Revien (1987) (Group 2) was compared with that
given relaxation training. Vedelli (1986) compared of participants given reading materials on the sport of
the coincidence-timing performance of 12 individuals tennis, designed to enhance their con® dence and
given 6 weeks of visual training ± using the eye exercises expectation of success (Group 3), and those given no
prescribed by Revien and Gabor (1981) with three 15- systematic visual training (Group 4). The visual training
min practice sessions per week ± with a control group programmes of Revien and Gabor (1981) and Revien
of equal size given no such training. A signi® cant (1987) were selected not only because they are repre-
improvement in hitting a tennis ball for accuracy was sentative of the commercial prescriptive self-help pro-
found in favour of the experimental group, but the grammes readily available to athletes and coaches, but
design did not permit exclusion of possible Hawthorne they have also been the subject of previous study and
 206 Abernethy and Wood

both make strong claims about their eþ ectiveness in group contained equal numbers of males and females.
enhancing sports performance. An attempt was also made to ensure that those partici-
Revien and Gabor (1981, p. 21) claimed that `visual pants scoring above and below average on basic visual
training . . . may well make the diþ erence between and motor test measures were evenly distributed across
winning and losing, between revelling in keen com- the four groups. Participation was on a voluntary basis
petition or shrinking from it’ . Similarly, Revien (1987, and the participants were free to withdraw from the
p. 5) made the claim that the training exercises con- study at any stage.
tained on the Eyerobics tape will improve: visual skills;
mental and physical performance; ability, speed and
accuracy to recognize over a larger area; awareness and Experimental design
perception of all objects in space; and concentration
and con® dence. If the claims are valid, then the two The experimental design was essentially identical to that
experimental groups should perform better than the used by Wood and Abernethy (1997), with the excep-
placebo and control groups on both visual parameters tion of two visual training groups rather than one (see
and motor performance by the end of the training Fig. 1). The two experimental groups (Groups 1 and 2)
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

programme. In contrast, the prediction based on evalu- each undertook diþ erent types of visual training. The
ation of the assumptions underlying visual training, members of Group 1 were trained using exercises from
on the general arguments raised against vision therapy Revien and Gabor’ s (1981) Sports Vision programme
by ophthalmologists (e.g. Heiger, 1984) and on the of eye exercises for athletes, while the members
empirical evidence of Wood and Abernethy (1997), is of Group 2 were trained using the Eyerobics videotape-
that even if the programmes succeed in enhancing basic based training programme (Revien, 1987). Each visual
visual function, this is unlikely to transfer into a motor training group undertook four 20-min visual training
performance advantage for the experimental groups sessions and one 20-min motor practice session per
over the other groups. Superior motor performance by week for 4 weeks. All training sessions were supervised.
either or both of the visual training groups, achieved in The motor practice session was spent on the criterion
the absence of improved basic visual function, will be sport task of hitting tennis forehand drives for accuracy.
taken as evidence of placebo eþ ects. The total visual training provided exceeded the time
period and frequency of practice claimed by proponents
of visual training (Revien and Gabor, 1981) to be
Methods suý cient to improve sports performance.
Group 3 (the reading group) attended the same
Participants amount of supervised training each week as the two
visual training groups, spending four 20-min sessions
The participants were selected from a pool of male and per week reading about and watching televised tennis
female university undergraduates aged 16± 28 years who matches and one 20-min session per week undertaking
had no speci® c competitive experience in racquet motor practice. Both visual training groups and the
sports. All were pre-screened for visual defects and reading group were given preliminary statements about
ocular disease; individuals who normally wear pre- the expected positive eþ ects on sports performance
scription lenses to play sport were tested while wearing of the training they were undertaking. The purpose of
these corrections. Pre-screening included an assess- this instruction was to give participants in Groups 1± 3
ment of ® xation disparity/binocular stability, screening comparable amounts of both supervised attention and
for red± green colour defects and an ophthalmoscopic expectation of bene® ts from their respective training
inspection by a trained clinical optometrist. Individuals regimens. Group 4, the control group, received no visual
with uncorrected refractive errors or ocular disease or supervised training of any form throughout the 4
were omitted from the study. This action was taken weeks of practice; all they undertook was one 20-min
because visual training programmes are typically motor practice session per week. Participants in the
advocated for use in enhancing visual performance control group were given no a priori statements about
beyond normal and as an addition to, rather than the expected eþ ects or bene® ts of the practice they were
as a substitute for, the use of prescription lenses in undertaking.
alleviating visual defects. At the end of the 4 weeks practice, all participants
After an initial screening of about 60 individuals, 40 were re-tested on the same visual and motor parameters
aged 16± 28 years (mean 18.9 years) were invited to tested before training; the diþ erences on each of the
participate in the experiment. These participants were parameters were then compared between groups.
allocated in a quasi-random fashion to form four equal Comparison of changes in visual and motor perfor-
groups. The allocation of individuals ensured that each mance over the practice period for the visual training
 Visual training 207
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

Fig. 1. The experimental design of the study.

groups and the reading group allowed us to determine was used to cast rapid alternating sequences of light
the eþ ects of visual training as opposed to placebo or and dark on the retina in an attempt to stimulate and
Hawthorne eþ ects. Comparison of pre- to post-training improve the sensitivity of central retinal receptors and,
changes in visual performance for the visual training through this, visual acuity.
and reading groups with the control group provided 2. Spiral rotation exercise. An attempt was made to
an indication of the extent to which any such changes train the temporary illusion of enlarged object size,
were due simply to familiarity with the test pro- which occurs immediately subsequent to prolonged
cedures, as opposed to genuine improvements owing viewing of a rotating spiral. The assumption behind the
to the speci® c training undertaken. All groups had use of this exercise is that, having experienced object
motor practice weekly, providing all participants ± but enlargement, albeit temporarily, through this illusion,
the visual training group in particular ± with the athletes may then be able to voluntarily induce the
opportunity to match progressively or (re)calibrate any appearance of greater object size (and hence pre-
alterations in the functioning of their visual system sumably enhance acuity) whenever it is required.
with the requirements of the motor system (Smyth and 3. Chord ball training. This exercise involves training
Marriott, 1982). This was important given the essential on a modi® ed version of the Brock string and purports
functional interdependences between perception and to improve accommodation and convergence skills.
action (Turvey and Carello, 1986). Participants are required to make rapid ® xational shifts
among target beads located at diþ erent distances along
a taut length (~ 3 m) of chord. The rapid changes in
Training procedures
® xation point induce physiological diplopia, which is
Group 1. Participants in this group undertook visual utilized phenomenologically in the instructions given
training using the eye exercises described by Revien on the task.
and Gabor (1981, pp. 28± 111), with the exercises 4. The swinging ball exercise. This involves participants
administered in the order and for the duration suggested visually tracking (without head movements) a ball
in their sample training programme (pp. 24± 25). Each moving across the ® eld of view. The rationale behind
of the exercises was repeated, but with progressively this exercise is that training the eyes to move in a
increased task diý culty, in weeks 2, 3 and 4 of the smooth, coordinated fashion will improve timing and
training programme. The exercises were implemented eý ciency, as well as making the athlete less prone to
following precisely the procedural instructions pro- distraction.
vided in the Sports Vision training manual. The speci® c 5. Swinging ball with pointed ® nger. This is a simple
exercises included in the training programme were as variant of the previous one, the only exception being
follows: that the motion of the ball is this time also tracked
with the hand in an attempt to improve hand± eye
1. Light stimulation exercise. A hand-held ¯ ashlight coordination.
 208 Abernethy and Wood

6. Coloured rotor exercise. The principal stimulus Eyerobics video package. The Eyerobics package consists
device for this exercise is a disk containing a distinguish- of the following six training exercises:
able black dot among shapes and sizes of diþ erent
colours. The disk is rotated at diþ erent speeds and 1. Rotating spiral exercise. Essentially, this is a video-
the task is to track binocularly the black dot using tape version of the spiral rotation exercise undertaken
smooth eye movements. The exercise aims to improve by the participants in Group 1. The author claims the
peripheral awareness, the rationale being that the `bright exercise `improves circulation and retinal stimulation
background with shapes in various colours, and the and visual acuity’ and `creates a bene® cial visualization
constant movement, all serve to stimulate the retina, stored in the brain and used when concentrating’ .
increasing its sensitivity and enabling you to discern 2. Rotating target exercise. The participants were
more, and better, in the peripheral range of vision’ instructed to follow, with both eyes, the circular move-
(Revien and Gabor, 1981, p. 76). ment of a target (a ball) on screen while maintaining
7. Marbles in a carton exercise. A medium-sized card- a ® xed head position. The diý culty of the task was pro-
board box containing 6± 12 marbles of diþ erent colours, gressively increased by adding distracting stimuli and
within which is marked a central black dot, is background colour changes and by increasing the dis-
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

used for this exercise, which Revien and Gabor (1981) tance between the viewer and the monitor from 1 to 2
claim enhances peripheral awareness. The participant’ s m. This exercise purports to `improve eye coordination,
task, like that in the previous exercise, is to focus on the concentration, binocular control and pursuit re¯ exes’ .
central black dot while tipping the box to create random 3. Grid tracing exercise. This exercise requires the
motion of the marbles across diþ erent parts of the visual participants to detect as quickly as possible, and follow
® eld. as closely as possible, the motion of a dot as it traverses a
8. Flip-card practice. This involves using 50± 100 grid network. Task diý culty is incremented by having
marked index cards to produce a manual form of the the target dot move faster and make more frequent
typical tachistoscopically presented memory span test. changes in direction. The claimed bene® t of this
Cards are marked with a central ® xation dot and two 2- exercise is the improved ability to `quickly recognize,
digit stimuli positioned equidistant but progressively focus on and follow a moving object in any direction’ .
displacing from the central ® xation point. The task is to 4. Speed and span of recognition exercise. Like the ¯ ip-
identify both sets of numbers as the card set is rapidly card exercise undertaken by participants in Group 1,
¯ ipped through the ® ngers. Revien and Gabor (1981) this exercise tries to enhance speed and span of recog-
claim that repetitive practice will not only improve nition (and faster reaction to objects over a large
speed and span of recognition, but also peripheral visual area) by having participants mentally repeat a number
range. sequence or select the end number in a large sequence
9. String pull exercise. This exercise, which aims to when the sequence is only presented for a very brief
enhance depth perception, is essentially a modi® cation period of time (< 100 ms). Task diý culty was pro-
of the Howard-Dolman method used to test depth per- gressed not only by decreasing the exposure duration
ception. A long (~ 8 m) piece of string is hooked for the stimuli, but also by increasing the length of the
through two eyelets screwed to a solid object approxi- stimulus sequence, by adding background distractors,
mately 4 m from the participant and con® gured so and by varying the location and physical size of the
that the participant is able to hold one end of the string stimulus sequences.
in each hand. The task is then to align the single beads 5. Barber pole exercise. This involves an image of a
on each piece of string so that they are positioned barber’ s pole rotating continuously through diþ erent
equidistant. spatial locations with the speed and frequency of
Warm-up and warm-down exercises, as suggested directional changes in the rotation of the pole being
by Revien and Gabor (1981, pp. 28± 35 and 96± 105), progressively increased. Participants were instructed
were also incorporated into each visual training session. to alternate concentration from the top to the bottom
The one 20-min session of motor practice per week of the rotating pole while maintaining a ® xed head
undertaken by all participants in Group 1 consisted position. The exercise purports to `increase the appreci-
of continuous practice on the criterion motor task ation and awareness of objects in space’ and `improve
of stationary and moving tennis forehand drives for mental spatial orientation and binocular coordination’ .
accuracy. 6. Rotation 3D exercise. For this section of the training
programme, the participants were required to view the
Group 2. In addition to the 20 min of motor practice screen through glasses containing red/green ® lters.
per week experienced by all other groups, Group 2 Static images of stylized sports ® gures were presented
undertook four 20-min sessions per week of visual train- which rotated in three dimensions and which, with the
ing using exercises taken directly from Revien’ s (1987) appropriate lenses, created the illusion of changing
 Visual training 209

depth. The author claims this viewing exercise general visuo-perceptual tests and sport-speci® c motor
`improves depth perception in all areas’ and `creates tests were selected for use in this project. The general
smooth eþ ortless motion of both eyes together’ . visual function tests were derived mainly from items
All of the training sessions of Group 2 were super- included by Coþ ey and Reichow (1987).
vised. The training schedules developed used pro-
gressions within each of the exercises consistent with General visuo-perceptual tests. Most visuo-perceptual
the training schedules provided with the manual tests were conducted binocularly. The participants wore
accompanying the videotape. The diý culty of the their corrective lenses if these were customarily worn
exercises was increased progressively over each of for playing sport. The 12 tests were as follows:
the 4 weeks of training.
1. Static visual acuity. This refers to the ability to
Group 3. The participants in Group 3 attended as resolve detail in an object when there is no relative
many sessions (4 ´ 20 min) and experienced as much movement between the observer and the target. It is
motor practice (1 ´ 20-min session) per week as those typically speci® ed in terms of the minimum angle of
in the other groups. The members of group 3 spent two resolution of a test object that can be achieved at a
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

of their 20-min sessions reading instruction books given viewing distance. In this study, static visual acuity
on playing tennis and the other two sessions watching was measured both binocularly and monocularly for
videotape replays of matches from the 1990 US Open distance (6 m) and near (33 cm) using the Bailey-Lovie
tennis tournament. Participants in this group were given logMAR Chart. Visual acuity was scored letter by
a statement at the outset of the training period about the letter with each correct letter being counted as 0.02 log
expected positive eþ ect of sports knowledge on sports units.
performance. This statement was made in an attempt to 2. Dynamic visual acuity. This is a measure of the
match the expectations established by the statements ability of a person to resolve detail in a target object
contained in the visual training materials presented when there is relative movement between the observer
to Groups 1 and 2, thus providing an eþ ective placebo and the target. Dynamic visual acuity was assessed using
control group. a modi® ed version of the procedure described by Coþ ey
and Reichow (1987). Two high-contrast black letters,
Group 4. The participants in this group only under- the larger one from the 20/20 (6/6) and the smaller one
took the weekly 20-min practice on the motor task. from the 20/10 (6/3) line of a Snellen eye chart, were
The principal purpose of this group was to provide base- pasted onto a white disk, which in turn was aý xed to
lines in improvement on the motor performance task the surface of a turntable. The turntable, which was
and to ascertain the extent of any pre- to post-training positioned upright and at eye level, was controlled by
improvements in visual performance that were simply a a variable-speed motor capable of continuous angular
function of test familiarity. velocity changes between 1 and 78 rev ´min- 1. The test
distance was set at 1.5 m, resulting in static visual target
resolution demand of 20/80 (6/24) for the larger target
Tests of visual function and motor performance
and 20/40 (6/12) for the smaller target. The apparatus
The visual and motor tests served several functions was initially covered when the participants entered the
in this study: further screening of participants for experimental room and then the display was presented
uncorrected visual defects and ocular disease; allocation with the turntable rotating at its maximum speed.
of individuals to groups; and, most importantly, assess- The turntable speed was progressively reduced and the
ment of the relative pre- to post-training diþ erences participants were required to identify the rotating target
in performance. To ful® l these functions adequately, it letters, while maintaining a steady head position. The
was essential that a set of tests was assembled that was maximum rotational speed at which each letter was
suý ciently sensitive to detect any changes in visuo- ® rst correctly identi® ed, averaged over three trials,
motor performance. The tests also need to be appro- was recorded as the measure of dynamic visual acuity.
priate to the parameters of visual performance that the 3. Phoria. Phoria refers to the extent to which the axes
speci® c visual training exercises purport to improve, of both eyes are in symmetry when viewing objects at
and representative of typical test batteries used for the diþ erent distances and is directly dependent upon the
general assessment of visual and motor performance. balance of the co-acting pairs of extra-ocular muscles.
Moreover, it was important that the tests used assessed We assessed phorias in the horizontal and vertical planes
the same general visual skills that the visual training using the Maddox Rod at the far distance and the
programmes purport to improve but that they used Maddox Wing apparatus at the near distance. Phorias
assessment procedures that were not identical to those were measured in prism diopters with exophorias scored
used in any of the training exercises. The following as positive values and esophorias as negative values.
 210 Abernethy and Wood

4. Accommodation. When the viewing distance is calculated for the ® ve responses given with the right
changed, the focus of the crystalline lens of the eye must index ® nger (the same response as used for simple
be altered by the action of the ciliary muscle to maintain reaction time). In both conditions, foreperiod durations
maximum resolution; the lens becoming spherical were varied so as to prevent anticipation. Using both
for viewing near objects and ¯ at for far objects. This conditions as data, decision-making rates (in ms per bit)
change in eye focus is termed `accommodation’ were also computed for each participant by determining
and the eþ ectiveness of this process can be assessed the slope of the stimulus information± reaction time plot.
by determining the speed with which individuals can 9. Field of view. Sensitivity to visual stimuli across the
repeatedly adjust focus for diþ erent viewing distances. broad ® eld of view (Smythies, 1996) was assessed by
We measured accommodation by counting the cycles determining the detection thresholds of each individual
per minute that each participant could complete in for stationary (static) and moving (kinetic) stimuli pre-
accommodating to alternating presentation of ± 1 sented at various eccentricities. Stimulus presentation
diopter prism ¯ ippers at a viewing distance of 50 cm. and data collection were controlled by a commercially
5. Vergence. The ability to converge and diverge the available automated perimeter (Humphrey 630 Field
eyes in viewing distant and far objects was assessed Analyser; Allergan Humphrey, San Diego, CA). In the
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

using a Risley rotating prism. Self-reported break-in static condition, the participants maintained a central
and break-out points were recorded for letter targets ® xation while stimuli were presented randomly at each
and these were summed to provide measures of fusional of 24 eccentricities along the horizontal meridian.
reserves for image blurring, image breaking and image Stimulus locations ranged in 6° steps from central vision
recovery. (0°) to positions 72° in both the left and right visual
6. Stereopsis. Stereopsis is the ability to discriminate ® elds. Detection thresholds were determined for each
diþ erences in target object depth through the use of stimulus location. In the kinetic condition, stimuli were
binocular disparity information. We assessed stereopsis introduced along 12 meridians (three on each of
by asking the participants to view standard random dot the four viewing quadrants ± left above the horizontal,
stereograms through red and green ® ltered goggles. The left below the horizontal, right above the horizontal
® nest stereoscopic depth discrimination each individual and right below the horizontal) and moved at a constant
was able to perform was recorded in minutes of arc. velocity of 0.07 rad ´s- 1 centrally until they were
7. Depth perception. Given that stereopsis is only an detected. In total, 12 stimuli were presented in random
eþ ective method for depth discrimination for objects order to each individual and the spatial coordinates of
within approximately 1 m of the observer, yet many each stimulus at the time of detection were recorded.
sports require discriminations to be made at much These coordinates were then used to produce spatial
greater distances, a second depth perception test (the maps, the areas of which provided the measure of kinetic
Howard-Dolman test) was also conducted. The partici- ® eld size. Two target stimuli of diþ erent size were used
pants were seated 4.5 m from an illuminated box, and separate area calculations were undertaken for each
within which were two moveable vertical uprights. The target size.
participant’ s task, without using head movements, 10. Peripheral response time. The ability of the partici-
was to align the two uprights using strings attached pants to respond rapidly and successively to peripherally
independently to each of the uprights. Three trials presented stimuli was assessed using the Wayne
were conducted and depth error was measured as the Computerized Saccadic Fixator (Wayne Engineering
absolute distance between the plane of the two uprights. Orthoptic Division, Skokie, IL). Administration of the
8. Reaction time. Both simple and choice reaction test was essentially as described by Coþ ey and Reichow
time were assessed using a con® guration in which green (1987) with illumination set as recommended by Appler
light-emitting diodes were used to present visual stimuli and Quimby (1984). The participants stood facing
and in which each stimulus light had a corresponding the apparatus, with the centre of the apparatus at eye
button for ® nger press responding. For simple reaction height and within comfortable reaching distance of
time, there was only one possible stimulus and one the response buttons. The lights on the apparatus were
possible response (a button press with the right index programmed to illuminate in random order and the task
® nger). Reaction time was measured as the delay was to depress as many of the lights (response buttons)
between illumination of the stimulus light and the indi- as possible within 30 s. After an initial practice trial,
vidual’ s response. In total, 10 trials were presented three test trials were administered and the best score for
in this condition, with the mean of the last ® ve each individual (correct responses made in 30 s) was
responses being calculated. For choice reaction time, derived as a dependent measure.
there were four possible stimulus lights each with their 11. Eye movement skills. The ability of the participants
own unique response key. Twenty trials were performed to make quick and accurate self-guided ® xations
in this condition, with the mean reaction time being and saccadic eye movements was assessed using a
 Visual training 211

projected King-Devick reading test. Each individual of successful shots was determined. In half of these
was presented sequentially with three diþ erent number trials, the participants were on the move when striking
matrices with the horizontal separation of the numbers the ball (from a starting position 3.25 m from the
in the rows of each matrix being varied at random. desired striking position); in the other half, they were
The task was to read these numbers aloud quickly stationary.
and accurately. The time taken to read aloud all of The tests were undertaken in three sessions. The
the numbers in each of the tests was recorded, together ophthalmoscopy and the tests of static acuity, phorias,
with the number of reading errors. Although this test ® xation disparity, accommodation, vergence, stereopsis,
was originally designed for use in detecting eye move- colour vision and visual ® eld size were performed in a
ment diý culties in children, it was included because it session lasting about 40 min, the remaining vision tests
has been advocated as part of visual pro® ling batteries in a second session lasting 90 min, and the sport-speci® c
for sports performers by Coþ ey and Reichow (1987). motor test in a ® nal session lasting approximately 25
12. Coincidence-timing ability. The ability to coincide min.
a motor response with the arrival of a moving object at a
target point was assessed using a Bassin Coincidence
Data analysis
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

Timer (Lafayette Instruments Co., Lafayette, IN). The

task was designed in an attempt to simulate the racquet Each of the dependent measures of visual and motor
sport requirement of timing the downswing of the performance was subjected to mixed factorial analyses
racquet to coincide with the arrival of the ball in the of variance to determine if there were signi® cant pre-
contact zone. This task has previously been reported to to post-training changes and whether such changes
bene® t from generalized visual training (Vedelli, 1986). were in¯ uenced by the particular group or training con-
The participants were positioned either directly behind ditions experienced by the participants. Consequently,
or slightly to the side of a 4.3-m linear runway along the between-individual factor of group membership
which apparent motion could be generated. They were (four levels) and the within-individual factor of time
required either to depress a hand-held response button of testing (two levels) were included in the analyses for
or to swing a tennis racquet through a photo-optic beam each of the visual and motor measures. Additional
so as to coincide the completion of their action with the within-individual factors were included in the analyses
moment of arrival of the apparent motion at the end of for some of the variables. Target distance was included
the runway. In total, 30 trials were administered in each as a factor in the analyses for static visual acuity, phoria
response condition with each set of trials containing and vergence; target size in the analyses for dynamic
equal, but randomly ordered, presentations of stimulus visual acuity and kinetic visual ® eld size; target eccen-
motion of 5, 10 and 15 miles per hour (2.24, 4.47 tricity in the analysis of static visual ® eld size; and plane
and 6.72 m ´ s- 1). These stimulus velocities are com- of measurement (horizontal or vertical) in the analyses
parable to those typically used in both research and for static visual acuity and phoria. Exposure duration
clinical practice using this apparatus and were chosen was added to the analysis of performance on the rapid
to present viewing times comparable to those in ball ball detection task, task diý culty in the analysis of
sports. Coincidence-timing performance was expressed eye movement skills, and whether the participant was
as absolute accuracy (absolute error), directional bias stationary or moving in the analysis of motor perfor-
(constant error) and consistency (variable error) mance. The analysis conducted on coincidence-timing
(Schmidt, 1988). Negative scores indicated early performance included response mode and stimulus
responses and positive scores late responses. velocity as additional within-individual factors. For
all of these statistical analyses, an alpha of 0.05 was
Sport-speci® c motor test: Tennis forehand drive for initially selected and then a Bonferroni adjustment was
accuracy. The criterion sport task used in this experi- made as protection against in¯ ated rejection of the null
ment involved the participants hitting a series of tennis hypothesis (Johnson and Wichern, 1988). With 21
forehand drives for accuracy. A Prince tennis ball diþ erent analyses to be conducted, this gave rise to a
projection machine was positioned 21.9 m from the corrected alpha of 0.0024 for the 95% con® dence level.
participants and directed so as to deliver balls down the
forehand line of the tennis court. The task was to play
a cross-court forehand drive to the projected ball to
Results
land it in a circular target zone (3.5 m in radius) in
the forehand court on the opposite side of the net.
General visuo-perceptual tests
The participants were allowed as much warm-up and
familiarization practice as they wished before under- Static visual acuity. Table 1 shows the pre-training to
taking a series of 30 trials from which the percentage post-training values of static visual actuity for each
 212 Abernethy and Wood

group, with separate ® gures provided for the binocular, this measure, as the main eþ ect for time of testing
right monocular and left monocular viewing at both the did not approach statistical signi® cance (F1,34 = 0.225,
optically far and the optically near viewing distances. P = 0.638).
Negative values indicate static visual acuity better than
6/6 (or 20/20) and positive values denote static visual Accommodation. Pre- to post-training improvements
acuity worse than 6/6. A four-way analysis of variance in accommodation, as indicated by a higher rate of
(ANOVA) revealed signi® cant eþ ects only for the accommodative changes per minute, were apparent for
viewing distance factor (F1,35 = 197.8, P < 0.001), which all groups (F1,31 = 5.54, P = 0.025) (Table 2) but failed
was due to relatively poorer static visual acuity at the to reach the corrected alpha level for signi® cance. Pre- to
near viewing distance than the far one. Group mem- post-training improvements were not selective, as there
bership had no impact on acuity overall (F3,35 = 0.975, was no greater change for either of the visual training
P = 0.416), or in interaction with the time of testing groups or the reading group compared with the control
(F3,35 = 0.848, P = 0.477) or any other factor in the group (F3,31 = 1.48, P = 0.239).
experiment. We conclude, therefore, that the training
regimens used by Groups 1± 3 did not in¯ uence static
Vergence. The break and recovery measures of fusional
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

visual acuity, nor was there any indication for Group 4,

reserves both revealed identical statistical conclusions:
or any other group, of pre- to post-training improve-
a signi® cant main eþ ect for viewing distance (F1,33 =
ments in acuity attributable simply to familiarity with
23.2, P < 0.001 for the break measure; F1,33 = 17.9,
the test procedure.
P < 0.001 for the recovery measure) in the absence of
any other signi® cant eþ ects. The distance main eþ ect
Dynamic visual acuity. The only signi® cant eþ ect
was due on both measures to greater fusional reserves
evident in the statistical analysis of dynamic visual
at the near viewing distance (see Table 2). No overall
acuity was a predictably better performance by all
group eþ ects (F3,33 = 1.55, P = 0.219 for blur; F3,33 =
participants for the larger target than for the smaller
2.08, P = 0.122 for break; F3,33 = 1.50, P = 0.233 for
target (F1,36 = 64.2, P < 0.001) (Table 1). As with
recovery) or group eþ ects selective to the time of testing
static visual acuity, there was no evidence of the visual
(F3,33 = 0.65, P = 0.588 for blur; F3,33 = 0.209, P =
training programmes causing any signi® cant improve-
0.889 for break; F3,33 = 0.498, P = 0.686 for recovery)
ments in acuity. The group treatment eþ ects had no
were apparent. This indicates that the training
signi® cant in¯ uence on dynamic visual acuity either
programmes experienced by the participants were
overall (F3,36 = 1.71, P = 0.183) or selectively on either
ineþ ective in improving vergence.
the pre- or post-test (F3,36 = 2.19, P = 0.106) and there
were also no signi® cant higher-order interactions
between groups and any other factors. The overall Stereopsis. The stereoscopic data for each group
pre- to post-training changes in dynamic visual acuity are shown in Table 2 and, in all cases, are well within
were not signi® cant (F1,36 = 3.20, P = 0.082), indicating the normal range. Stereopsis scores did not diþ er
minimal eþ ects attributable simply to familiarity with overall between any of the groups (F3,31 = 0.265, P =
the test procedure. 0.850) or as a function of the time of testing
(F1,31 = 1.44, P = 0.240). Furthermore, there were no
Phoria. A four-way ANOVA on phoria revealed a signi® cant group diþ erences in the pre- to post-training
signi® cant interaction between viewing distance and stereopsis score changes (F3,31 = 0.585, P = 0.629),
plane of measurement (F1,34 = 108.0, P < 0.001). indicating that none of the training programmes
This was due to signi® cant exophoria in the horizontal had impacted in any substantive way on this visual
plane at the near viewing distance, an eþ ect not repro- function.
duced at the far distance or at either distance in the
vertical plane (see Table 2). Horizontal exophoria at Depth perception. The results obtained on the
near viewing is a typical response and all values recorded Howard-Dolman test of depth perception mirrored
were well within the accepted normal clinical range of those obtained for stereopsis (Table 2). No signi® cant
± 6 diopters. Importantly, in the current context, there eþ ects for group were obtained overall (F3,36 = 0.204,
were no signi® cant eþ ects due to the treatment con- P = 0.893) or selectively on the pre- or post-training
ditions; the group factor did not approach signi® cance tests (F3,36 = 0.224, P = 0.879). The visual training
either overall (F3,34 = 0.841, P = 0.481) or in interaction programmes, therefore, appear to oþ er no advantage
with time of testing (F3,34 = 0.776, P = 0.516). This indi- in enhancing depth perception. Similarly, there was
cates that the training regimens had no long-term, no main eþ ect for the time of testing (F1,36 = 1.075,
measurable impact on ocular muscle balance. There P > 0.05), indicating that the test was subject to
was also no indication of test familiarity eþ ects on minimal familiarity eþ ects.
 Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

Table 1. Pre- and post-training values for static and dynamic visual acuity (mean ± s)

Group 1: Sports vision Group 2: Eyerobics Group 3: Reading/placebo Group 4: Control

Measure Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

SVA
RM (far) - 0.16 ± 0.10 - 0.16 ± 0.14 - 0.17 ± 0.09 - 0.14 ± 0.12 - 0.01 ± 0.21 - 0.05 ± 0.22 - 0.13 ± 0.08 - 0.18 ± 0.09
LM (far) - 0.16 ± 0.10 - 0.20 ± 0.10 - 0.13 ± 0.11 - 0.16 ± 0.15 - 0.04 ± 0.28 0.00 ± 0.31 - 0.03 ± 0.33 - 0.07 ± 0.34
BIN (far) - 0.21 ± 0.10 - 0.22 ± 0.10 - 0.20 ± 0.10 - 0.19 ± 0.12 - 0.15 ± 0.19 - 0.14 ± 0.20 - 0.20 ± 0.07 - 0.22 ± 0.08
RM (near) 0.09 ± 0.11 0.09 ± 0.14 0.16 ± 0.13 0.18 ± 0.10 0.20 ± 0.09 0.12 ± 0.06 0.16 ± 0.14 0.14 ± 0.10
LM (near) 0.09 ± 0.11 0.08 ± 0.11 0.18 ± 0.15 0.16 ± 0.11 0.23 ± 0.18 0.17 ± 0.23 0.24 ± 0.36 0.23 ± 0.35
BIN (near) 0.04 ± 0.07 0.06 ± 0.07 0.11 ± 0.11 0.12 ± 0.10 0.08 ± 0.10 0.05 ± 0.05 0.10 ± 0.09 0.08 ± 0.09

DVA
6/12 Target 58.7 ± 8.7 62.2 ± 10.8 57.0 ± 6.7 64.6 ± 4.5 57.4 ± 7.7 53.9 ± 9.6 59.2 ± 7.1 61.8 ± 6.2
6/24 Target 66.9 ± 5.5 67.5 ± 4.9 66.3 ± 6.3 68.6 ± 4.6 64.4 ± 5.9 63.5 ± 6.0 66.2 ± 7.9 68.3 ± 4.5

Note: Static visual acuity (SVA) is measured in log MAR units and dynamic visual acuity (DVA) in rev ´min - 1. RM = right monocular, LM = left monocular, BIN = binocular.
 Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

Table 2. Pre- and post-training values for phoria, accommodation, vergence, stereopsis and depth perception (mean ± s)

Group 1: Sports vision Group 2: Eyerobics Group 3: Reading/placebo Group 4: Control

Measure Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

Phoria
Far horizontal - 0.67 ± 1.6 - 0.22 ± 1.6 - 0.35 ± 0.8 - 0.75 ± 0.6 +1.00 ± 3.9 +1.40 ± 4.8 - 0.33 ± 1.0 - 0.56 ± 1.1
Far vertical +0.06 ± 0.4 +0.11 ± 0.3 0.00 ± 0.0 +0.10 ± 0.2 0.00 ± 0.0 0.00 ± 0.0 +0.11 ± 0.3 - 0.06 ± 0.4
Near horizontal +2.22 ± 2.0 +2.11 ± 2.2 +1.50 ± 1.0 +1.60 ± 1.4 +3.70 ± 5.8 +3.50 ± 5.9 +2.78 ± 2.0 +2.67 ± 1.9
Near vertical - 0.06 ± 1.7 0.00 ± 0.0 0.00 ± 0.0 +0.10 ± 0.2 0.00 ± 0.0 +0.50 ± 1.6 0.00 ± 0.0 0.00 ± 0.0

Accommodation 13.8 ± 3.8 16.1 ± 3.9 15.2 ± 4.2 14.5 ± 3.7 13.7 ± 5.9 17.6 ± 7.8 13.0 ± 2.7 16.0 ± 4.3

Vergence
Far (blur) 24.9 ± 6.1 25.5 ± 7.8 22.3 ± 6.8 25.2 ± 7.0 22.3 ± 7.1 21.7 ± 8.0 20.1 ± 5.3 21.4 ± 8.6
Far (break) 18.8 ± 5.2 17.3 ± 5.7 20.0 ± 2.5 20.7 ± 6.2 21.0 ± 4.1 23.1 ± 6.3 22.8 ± 3.4 22.2 ± 6.5
Far (recovery) 13.6 ± 5.8 12.1 ± 4.9 17.1 ± 3.7 14.4 ± 5.4 17.0 ± 5.1 16.8 ± 2.9 18.2 ± 6.1 16.7 ± 7.3
Near (blur) 26.1 ± 4.4 26.9 ± 4.5 24.9 ± 5.1 26.9 ± 3.6 23.1 ± 6.4 21.8 ± 8.2 22.6 ± 7.7 24.9 ± 5.8
Near (break) 22.3 ± 4.2 24.1 ± 5.9 25.5 ± 2.7 26.6 ± 4.3 24.3 ± 4.3 24.8 ± 6.6 25.9 ± 4.3 26.4 ± 4.2
Near (recovery) 17.6 ± 4.3 17.5 ± 9.2 23.3 ± 4.7 20.1 ± 5.7 18.9 ± 6.2 18.4 ± 6.1 20.9 ± 6.3 20.3 ± 7.7

Stereopsis 39.4 ± 17.8 52.5 ± 31.1 37.5 ± 31.8 37.5 ± 31.8 45.0 ± 18.4 45.0 ± 34.4 33.8 ± 17.5 50.6 ± 33.0

Depth perception 3.3 ± 3.2 3.4 ± 3.6 2.4 ± 1.3 3.0 ± 3.4 2.7 ± 2.0 2.7 ± 2.6 2.3 ± 1.2 2.9 ± 2.3

Note: Phoria is measured in prism diopters, accommodation and vergence in cycles ´min- 1, stereopsis in minutes of arc and depth perception in centimetres of error.
 Visual training 215
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

Fig. 2. Field of view sensitivities pre-training (d ) and post-training (s ) for each of the groups at each target eccentricity.

Reaction time. Simple reaction time did not alter ® eld), suggesting that there may be some familiarity
signi® cantly from pre- to post-training either overall eþ ects in the test procedure. These eþ ects were experi-
(F1,36 = 1.08, P = 0.306) or selectively for any of the enced by all participants and were selective to stimuli
groups (F3,36 = 0.159, P = 0.923) (Table 3). There was a presented in the far periphery. None of the main or
trend for choice reaction time to improve from pre- interactive eþ ects for kinetic ® eld size approached
to post-training (F1,36 = 7.30, P = 0.010), but the eþ ect signi® cance, indicating an absence of training and
occurred for all groups and was not simply restricted to familiarity eþ ects on this dynamic measure of visual
those groups experiencing visual training (F3,36 = 0.787, ® eld of view. As with the static test, no evidence
P = 0.509). All improvements in choice reaction time, was forthcoming to support the notion that the visual
therefore, can be attributed simply to task familiarity training programmes were eþ ective in enhancing
and not to the selective eþ ects of any of the training peripheral visual function (Table 3).
programmes.
Peripheral response time. Peripheral response times,
Field of view. Plots of the sensitivities for static stimuli as assessed from best performances on the Wayne
presented at diþ erent eccentricities in the left and right Computerized Saccadic Fixator, are presented for
visual ® elds are provided in Fig. 2. No evidence was each group and for each time of testing in Table 3.
obtained of signi® cant group eþ ects either overall or in A signi® cant (F1,20 = 30.6, P < 0.001) eþ ect for test
pre- to post-training changes in detection threshold. A occasion owing to systematic improvements from
trend existed for slightly better post-training sensitivities pre- to post-training was observed on this measure but
at some of the more peripheral locations (e.g. 60° and the eþ ect was not selective (F3,20 = 0.388, P = 0.763).
66° in the right visual ® eld and 66° in the left visual All four groups improved their task performance signi® -
 Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

Table 3. Pre- and post-training values for reaction time, kinetic visual ® eld size, and performance on the Wayne computerized Saccadic Fixator and the King-Devick test
(mean ± s)

Group 1: Sports vision Group 2: Eyerobics Group 3: Reading/placebo Group 4: Control

Measure Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

Reaction time
SRT 257.7 ± 41.4 265.9 ± 60.3 272.6 ± 55.7 264.2 ± 31.6 272.3 ± 37.9 264.6 ± 46.0 254.9 ± 21.0 255.8 ± 33.0
CRT 392.9 ± 60.9 380.7 ± 66.4 400.0 ± 56.0 375.4 ± 51.4 409.1 ± 64.9 397.7 ± 41.0 383.4 ± 53.8 339.7 ± 39.2
Decision-making 58.6 ± 34.8 57.4 ± 31.6 63.7 ± 23.8 55.6 ± 21.8 68.4 ± 27.7 66.5 ± 18.4 64.2 ± 29.1 42.0 ± 16.4

KVF
Small target 5310 ± 545 6425 ± 318 5379 ± 1376 7256 ± 738 6270 ± 2004 5673 ± 610 7119 ± 1927 6149 ± 1113
Large target 11701 ± 748 11037 ± 1093 10914 ± 172 11640 ± 92 11410 ± 221 10776 ± 643 9971 ± 2964 11357 ± 419

WCSF 56.8 ± 9.5 62.5 ± 7.7 51.4 ± 6.4 61.0 ± 9.2 51.8 ± 3.6 60.5 ± 2.5 51.2 ± 4.1 59.0 ± 5.9

KD test
Time 13.2 ± 1.9 13.7 ± 2.8 13.6 ± 1.4 14.9 ± 4.8 15.5 ± 2.6 15.8 ± 4.3 13.1 ± 1.7 13.1 ± 2.2
Errors 0.1 ± 0.4 0.6 ± 1.0 0.2 ± 0.4 0.5 ± 1.0 0.3 ± 0.6 0.7 ± 1.5 0.1 ± 0.3 0.1 ± 0.3

Note: Reaction time is measured in milliseconds (with decision-making rate in ms ´bit- 1), kinetic visual ® eld (KVF) size in arbitrary area units, performance on the Wayne Computerized Saccadic
Fixator (WCSF) in responses per 30 s and performance on the King-Devick (KD) test in both units of time (s) and error frequencies. SRT = simple reaction time, CRT = choice reaction time.
 Visual training 217

cantly from the pre-test to the post-test, again indicating premise that such programmes can deliver on their
that the improvements observed were simply due to claims of enhancing sports performance. This study
familiarity with the test procedures themselves and not was designed to examine these claims experimentally,
due to the eþ ects of visual training. as only anecdotal evidence exists to support their
validity. If these generalized visual training programmes
Eye movement skills. Mean reading time on the King- are indeed eþ ective, then one should expect to see
Devick eye movement skills test (Table 3) was sig- signi® cant improvements in both vision and motor
ni® cantly in¯ uenced by test diý culty (F2,72 = 9.30, performance for groups of participants receiving visual
P < 0.001) only. The training programme experienced training relative to groups not undergoing such training.
by the participants had no in¯ uence on task per- We noted earlier in this paper several reasons for
formance either overall (F3,36 = 2.22, P = 0.103) or scepticism as to the ability of generalized visual training
selectively on either the pre- or post-training test programmes to enhance sports performance. These
(F3,36 = 0.295, P = 0.829). Similarly, there appeared to reasons are grounded in experimental assessment of
be no familiarization eþ ects, with the main eþ ect for test the assumptions that underpin generalized visual
occasion being non-signi® cant (F1,36 = 1.18, P = 0.285). training. First, generalized programmes aim to improve
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

These statistical conclusions were mirrored in analysis basic visual functions, yet these are not typically the
of the (relatively few) errors made on the task. limiting factors to expert performance. Systematic
diþ erences between experts and novices do not emerge
Coincidence timing. Analysis of absolute error, as a on general visual function measures but do appear on
composite measure of timing performance, revealed many tasks requiring the interpretation and utilization
a signi® cant main eþ ect for the response mode used of sport-speci® c information (Starkes and Deakin,
(F1,36 = 36.4, P < 0.001) owing to greater error 1984; Abernethy, 1987; Starkes, 1987). Secondly,
magnitudes under the racquet as opposed to the ® nger training basic visuo-perceptual elements of performance
press response condition. Importantly, there was neither in isolation from the speci® c movement elements of
a signi® cant test eþ ect (F1,36 = 0.084, P = 0.773) nor sports performance may be ineþ ective, given the
a signi® cant group ´ test interaction (F3,36 = 0.459, importance of the close functional coupling of percep-
P = 0.713). No evidence was available, therefore, to tion and action in skill production (Turvey and Carello,
support the contention that exposure to the visual 1986). Thirdly, the attempt to gain improvements
training programmes would improve coincidence- in speci® c aspects of sport skill using general forms
timing ability. Similar statistical conclusions were of training violates the notion of speci® city of practice
reached from the analyses of constant error and variable (Henry, 1961), which is one of the oldest and most
error (Table 4). fundamental principles of skill acquisition. These
issues are similar to those raised over the past decades
by ophthalmologists against the use of vision therapy
Sport-speci® c motor test: Tennis forehand drive
programmes for children with reading diý culties
Analysis of the accuracy measure from the tennis fore- (Heiger, 1984; Cohen et al., 1985). This particular
hand drive task failed to reveal any signi® cant main or study was conducted to examine systematically whether
interactive eþ ects. Success rates were comparable across generalized visual training regimens could, in keeping
the stationary and moving conditions (F1,35 = 0.087, with the claims of their proponents, induce signi® cant
P = 0.770), as they were from the pre- to the post- changes in both visual and motor performance above
training test (F1,35 = 2.56, P = 0.119) (Table 5). There and beyond the changes arising from either expectancy
was no diþ erence in the performance of the four groups of improvement or physical practice alone.
on this task on either of the test occasions (F3,35 = 1.41, Despite the claims made by the authors of the visual
P = 0.256), indicating that the visual training pro- training programmes we examined, we were unable
grammes (Groups 1 and 2) and the reading programme to ® nd any evidence that such programmes actually
(Group 3) had been of no bene® t in increasing per- work. Comparison with the performance of the reading
formance on the sports skill task beyond that of the (placebo) group (Group 3) and the control group
control group (Group 4). experiencing only physical practice (Group 4) indicated
that neither the Sports Vision programme experienced
by Group 1 nor the Eyerobics programme experienced
Discussion by Group 2 were able to produce persistent improve-
ments in vision or in motor performance that could be
The use of generalized visual training programmes such attributed to selective exposure to the visual training.
as Sports Vision (Revien and Gabor, 1981) and Eyerobics Pre- to post-training improvements in performance
(Revien, 1987) by athletes and coaches is based on the were evident on some measures (i.e. peripheral
 Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

Table 4. Pre- and post-training values for coincidence timing (mean ± s)

Group 1: Sports vision Group 2: Eyerobics Group 3: Reading/placebo Group 4: Control

Measure Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

Absolute error
Button
5 miles ´h- 1 48.5 ± 30.8 39.2 ± 15.5 34.6 ± 9.0 39.4 ± 16.1 41.8 ± 25.3 36.7 ± 17.5 34.6 ± 11.4 30.9 ± 5.9
10 miles ´h- 1 44.3 ± 20.3 35.3 ± 12.9 36.0 ± 8.8 46.9 ± 34.4 40.1 ± 16.2 33.9 ± 11.6 38.4 ± 10.3 34.5 ± 7.8
15 miles ´h- 1 41.6 ± 19.6 37.8 ± 20.1 32.0 ± 12.3 44.4 ± 12.0 38.4 ± 16.5 38.5 ± 8.5 39.4 ± 7.0 42.9 ± 11.3
Racquet
1
5 miles ´h- 72.8 ± 27.9 78.2 ± 71.9 66.1 ± 17.7 55.2 ± 10.4 48.6 ± 12.7 57.1 ± 16.0 58.7 ± 12.7 76.3 ± 35.3
1
10 miles ´h- 81.5 ± 71.1 53.4 ± 18.4 65.4 ± 22.7 55.8 ± 26.0 59.0 ± 32.0 54.4 ± 22.2 51.5 ± 21.3 50.5 ± 13.6
1
15 miles ´h- 105.0 ± 108.3 99.2 ± 105.9 74.6 ± 29.1 61.5 ± 22.5 59.5 ± 27.1 73.4 ± 35.7 62.7 ± 32.3 72.8 ± 38.1

Constant error
Button
5 miles ´h- 1 +21.0 ± 42.2 +5.0 ± 23.0 - 4.3 ± 14.8 - 5.3 ± 20.2 - 13.3 ± 30.2 - 11.6 ± 22.8 +10.2 ± 12.2 - 5.1 ± 16.6
10 miles ´h- 1 +10.3 ± 37.1 +6.3 ± 20.1 - 7.8 ± 26.5 - 2.1 ± 41.2 - 16.6 ± 19.8 - 12.9 ± 16.4 +4.1 ± 18.7 - 4.7 ± 22.5
15 miles ´h- 1 - 11.3 ± 31.2 - 0.2 ± 17.8 - 4.6 ± 9.9 - 2.5 ± 28.8 - 6.8 ± 21.6 - 16.6 ± 21.2 - 12.4 ± 17.1 - 26.4 ± 17.7
Racquet
1
5 miles ´h- +41.0 ± 47.5 +29.3 ± 86.1 +22.6 ± 36.6 - 10.0 ± 26.0 +1.5 ± 33.3 +12.6 ± 35.1 +16.6 ± 28.4 +6.1 ± 59.7
1
10 miles ´h- +62.0 ± 78.5 +31.6 ± 26.0 +36.7 ± 36.3 +19.0 ± 36.8 +26.5 ± 49.6 +30.4 ± 28.5 +0.3 ± 3.4 +5.0 ± 20.2
1
15 miles ´h- +89.2 ± 118.4 +93.3 ± 108.1 +69.7 ± 33.1 +43.4 ± 36.7 +39.5 ± 38.4 +61.8 ± 43.6 +21.6 ± 52.5 +50.2 ± 50.7

Variable error
Button
5 miles ´h- 1 41.0 ± 23.0 42.5 ± 20.7 45.1 ± 17.6 43.1 ± 20.1 41.9 ± 26.0 42.0 ± 14.1 40.9 ± 16.3 37.8 ± 7.7
10 miles ´h- 1 44.5 ± 23.1 39.6 ± 15.3 37.7 ± 14.1 53.5 ± 40.4 46.2 ± 21.7 38.2 ± 14.7 48.6 ± 11.7 40.8 ± 9.4
15 miles ´h- 1 47.4 ± 21.0 47.0 ± 23.7 40.6 ± 15.8 51.4 ± 24.0 46.0 ± 19.8 40.4 ± 16.1 45.0 ± 5.9 44.0 ± 7.3
Racquet
1
5 miles ´h- 62.1 ± 23.3 93.2 ± 103.2 68.5 ± 21.5 64.3 ± 15.6 56.4 ± 15.8 63.1 ± 20.6 68.3 ± 21.0 81.2 ± 48.6
1
10 miles ´h- 83.4 ± 102.5 55.9 ± 19.2 66.8 ± 24.5 65.8 ± 31.2 56.8 ± 15.9 52.4 ± 22.5 59.2 ± 23.0 61.8 ± 21.8
1
15 miles ´h- 69.2 ± 90.2 75.0 ± 89.5 50.5 ± 10.0 58.8 ± 18.9 48.9 ± 28.2 50.7 ± 15.5 59.7 ± 21.4 59.4 ± 17.2

Note: Absolute, constant and variable errors measured in milliseconds.

 Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

Table 5. Pre- and post-training values for the motor performance task (mean ± s)

Group 1: Sports vision Group 2: Eyerobics Group 3: Reading/placebo Group 4: Control

Measure Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

Stationary 24.0 ± 18.1 34.0 ± 21.4 29.6 ± 20.3 34.1 ± 19.0 22.0 ± 18.6 34.0 ± 16.5 34.7 ± 21.7 38.0 ± 18.1
Moving 28.7 ± 20.4 29.3 ± 13.8 32.6 ± 20.7 29.6 ± 18.6 18.7 ± 18.3 35.5 ± 18.9 39.3 ± 21.4 32.7 ± 19.0

Note: The dependent measure in all cases is the percentage of correct/successful responses.
 220 Abernethy and Wood

response time and static sensitivity to some peripheral frequency than positive eþ ects, are unlikely to be
® eld locations) and there were trends in this direction reported because of their diminished importance to the
for others (i.e. accommodation and choice reaction clinician and patient (athlete) alike. Secondly, anecdotes
time), but these improvements were experienced by all necessarily re¯ ect observer bias; clinicians with an
participants in the experiment and were due, therefore, intuitive belief in the bene® ts of the training exercises
to test familiarity and not due to the visual training pro- they are prescribing will be more attuned to look for
grammes. Our ® ndings are consistent with the concerns possible facilitatory eþ ects than to observe neutral or
raised generally by ophthalmologists about the eý cacy inhibitory eþ ects. Thirdly, in the clinical context, where
of vision therapy and consistent with the existing individuals are trained on the same apparatus on which
experimental examinations of other types of generalized they are tested, improvements in test performance
visual training for sport (Wood and Abernethy, 1997). that are simply due to familiarity with the apparatus
There may be several reasons why the visual training and test protocol may be misinterpreted as genuine
programmes used in this study were ineþ ective in improvements in visual skills. Eþ ects due to test
improving both visual and motor performance. An familiarity cannot easily be separated from eþ ects owing
argument can be made that 4 weeks of practice may be to training per se in dealing with single individuals,
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

insuý cient to produce statistically signi® cant training but can be readily discriminated in between-group
eþ ects. However, such an explanation is unlikely, given experiments of the type conducted here, where control
the lack of any trends in the direction of better per- groups experiencing no visual training co-exist with
formance by the visual training groups. It is also note- experimental groups receiving training. In the current
worthy that the amount of training undertaken was experiment, pre- to post-training improvements in
greater than that speci® ed by the authors of the training such measures as choice reaction time and peripheral
programmes as being suý cient for improvements to be response time for individuals in the visual training
observed. That the training was ineþ ective in inducing groups could be misinterpreted as improvements due
changes in basic visual function is probably due to the to the training, if it were not for the observation of
use of many training exercises (such as those involving comparable changes in the other (control) groups who
viewing rotating spirals) that rely on visual illusions were not provided with such training.
whose eþ ects are transient. That the training was In the clinical context, the probability of placebo
ineþ ective in inducing improvements in motor perfor- eþ ects is also enhanced. Although signi® cant placebo
mance is also not surprising given the lack of situation eþ ects were not apparent in this study (i.e. Groups 3
speci® city in the training tasks. However, it remains and 4 did not diþ er systematically on any of the visual or
possible that more task-speci® c visual tests (such as eye motor measures), it is important to recognize that the
movement recording during the actual act of hitting) participants in this study were non-athletes recruited to
may be necessary to tease out and demonstrate visuo- participate in an experiment rather than competitive
motor improvements arising as a consequence of the athletes voluntarily seeking out professional help to
visual training programme. Nevertheless, the training improve performance. The motivation and personal
programmes’ fundamental failure would appear to be investment in the training programme and its outcome,
that they attempt to train general visual factors that are therefore, are likely to be signi® cantly higher in the
now known not to be the limiting factor to sports clinical context than the laboratory setting, exacerbating
performance. The ® ndings and conclusions from this the potential for changes in sports performance that are
study are consistent, therefore, with those of Wood and due to positive expectation and self-con® dence rather
Abernethy (1997), whose visual training programmes than improvements in vision.
were administered in a more clinical, one-on-one In conclusion, the results of this experiment, coupled
fashion rather than relying on self-help approaches of with those of Wood and Abernethy (1997), strongly
the type used in the two training programmes examined suggest that generalized visual training programmes
in this study. of the type advocated by sports optometrists should
An important corollary question that needs to be be used with caution by athletes and coaches. These
addressed relates to why the ® ndings from these con- programmes do not appear to provide the improve-
trolled studies are at odds with the clinical anecdotes ments in either basic visual function or motor per-
in which great successes are claimed from the use of formance relevant to sport that they claim to produce.
visual training. We believe these discrepancies can be
readily explained if the limitations in anecdotal reports
are clearly recognized. First, anecdotes are necessarily Acknowledgements
selective and, as a consequence, represent a biased
sample of experiences. Neutral or negative eþ ects from We express our appreciation to the Australian Sports Com-
visual training, which may occur with equal or greater mission for support of this project through its Applied Sports
 Visual training 221

Research Programme. We also thank Brian Brown for Harper, W.S., Landers, D.M. and Wang, M.Q. (1985).The role
assistance in the initial design of the experiments, Graham of visual training exercises in visual abilities and shooting
Paull, Ian Howick and Alastair Hanna for assistance in data performance. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of
collection and analysis at various stages throughout the pro- the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and
ject, and Bausch & Lomb (Australia) for loan of the Wayne Physical Activity, Gulf Park, MS, May.
Saccadic Fixator used in the study. Hazel, C.A. (1995). The eý cacy of sports vision practice and
its role in optometry. Clinical and Experimental Optometry,
78, 98± 105.
Heiger, A.A. (1984). Vision training and learning disorders.
References Connecticut Medicine, 48, 778± 780.
Helsen, W. and Pauwels, J.M. (1993). The relationship
Abernethy, B. (1986). Enhancing sports performance through between expertise and visual information processing in
clinical and experimental optometry. Clinical and Experi- sport. In Cognitive Issues in Motor Expertise (edited by
mental Optometry, 69, 189± 196. J. Starkes and F. Allard), pp. 109± 134. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Abernethy, B. (1987). Selective attention in fast ball sports: II. Henry, F.M. (1961). Speci® city vs generality in learning motor
Expert± novice diþ erences. Australian Journal of Science and skill. In Classical Studies in Physical Activity (edited by
Medicine in Sport, 19, 7± 16. R.C. Brown and G.S. Kenyon), pp. 331± 340. Englewood
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

Abernethy, B. and Russell, D.G. (1987). The relationship Cliþ s, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
between expertise and visual search strategy in a racquet Herman, E. and Retish, P. (1989). Vision therapy ± hoax, hope
sport. Human Movement Science, 6, 283± 319. or homilies? A physical education perspective. Adapted
Abernethy, B., Neal, R.J. and Koning, P.V. (1994). Visual- Physical Activity Quarterly, 6, 299± 306.
perceptual and cognitive diþ erences between expert, inter- Hughes, P.K., Blundell, N.L. and Walters, J.M. (1993). Visual
mediate, and novice snooker players. Applied Cognitive and psychomotor performance of elite, intermediate and
Psychology, 8, 185± 211. novice table tennis competitors. Clinical and Experimental
Allard, F., Graham, S. and Paarsalu, M.E. (1980). Perception Optometry, 76, 51± 60.
in sport: Basketball. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 14± 21. Johnson, C.A. and Leibowitz, H.W. (1974). Practice,
American Optometric Association (1988). Future of refractive error and feedback as factors in¯ uencing
Visual Development/Performance Task Force: Report on peripheral motion thresholds. Perception and Psychophysics,
the eý cacy of optometric vision therapy. Journal of the 15, 276± 280.
American Optometric Association, 59, 95± 105. Johnson, R.A. and Wichern, D.W. (1988). Applied Multivariate
Applegate, R.A. and Applegate, R.A. (1992). Set shot shooting Statistical Analysis, 2nd edn. Englewood Cliþ s, NJ: Prentice-
performance and visual acuity in basketball. Optometry and Hall.
Vision Science, 69, 765± 768. Landers, D.M. (1988). Improving motor skills. In Enhancing
Appler, D.V. and Quimby, C.A. (1984). The eþ ect of ambient Human Performance: Issues, Theories and Techniques (edited
room illumination upon Wayne Saccadic Fixator per- by D. Druckman and J. A. Swets), pp. 61± 101. Washington,
formance. Journal of the American Optometric Association, DC: National Academy Press.
55, 818± 821. Long, G.M. and Rourke, D.A. (1989). Training eþ ects on the
Coþ ey, B. and Reichow, A.W. (1987). Guidelines for screening resolution of moving targets: Dynamic visual acuity. Human
and testing the athlete’ s visual system ± Part III. Curriculum Factors, 31, 443± 451.
II (AOA), 59, 355± 368. Mayer, M.J. (1983). Practice improves adults’ contrast
Coþ ey, B. and Reichow, A.W. (1995). Visual performance sensitivity to diagonals. Vision Research, 23, 547± 550.
enhancement in sports optometry. In Sports Vision (edited McKee, S.P. and Westheimer, G. (1978). Improvement in
by D.F.C. Loran and C.J. MacEwen), pp. 158± 177. Oxford: vernier acuity with practice. Perception and Psychophysics, 24,
Butterworth-Heinemann. 258± 262.
Cohen, H.J., Coker, J.W., Crain, L.S., Healy, A., Katcher, A., McLeod, B. (1991). Eþ ects of Eyerobics visual skills training on
Openheimer, S.G. and Weisskopf, B. (1985). School-aged selected performance measures of female varsity soccer
children with motor disabilities. Pediatrics, 76, 648± 649. players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 863± 866.
Cohn, T.E. and Chaplik, D.D. (1991). Visual training in McLeod, B. and Hansen, E. (1989a). Eþ ects of the Eyerobics
soccer. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 1238± 1240. visual skills training program on static balance performance
Daum, K. (1982). The course and eþ ect of visual training on of male and female subjects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69,
the vergence system. American Journal of Optometry and 1123± 1126.
Physiological Optics, 59, 223± 227. McLeod, B. and Hansen, E. (1989b). The eþ ects of the
Fendick, M. and Westheimer, G. (1983). Eþ ects of practice Eyerobics visual skills training program on hand± eye co-
and the separation of test targets on foveal and peripheral ordination. Canadian Journal of Sports Sciences, 14, 127P.
stereoacuity. Vision Research, 23, 145± 150. Revien, L. (1987). Eyerobics (videotape). Great Neck, NY:
Garner, A.I. (1977). An overlooked problem: Athlete’ s visual Visual Skills Inc.
needs. Physician and Sportsmedicine, 5, 74± 82. Revien, L. and Gabor, M. (1981). Sports Vision: Dr. Revien’ s
Graybiel, A., Jokl, E. and Trapp, C. (1955). Russian studies Eye Exercises for Athletes. New York: Workman Publishing.
of vision in relation to physical activity and sports. Research Rouse, M. (1987). Management of binocular anomalies:
Quarterly, 26, 480± 485. Eý cacy of vision therapy in the treatment of accommo-
 222 Abernethy and Wood

dative de® ciencies. American Journal of Optometry and Turvey, M.T. and Carello, C. (1986). The ecological approach
Physiological Optics, 64, 415± 420. to perceiving-acting: A pictorial essay. Acta Psychologica, 63,
Saugstad, P. and Lie, I. (1964). Training of peripheral visual 133± 155.
acuity. Scandinavian Journal of Physiology, 5, 218± 224. Vedelli, J. (1986). A study of Revien’ s sports-vision tech-
Schmidt, R.A. (1988). Motor Control and Learning: A niques for improving motor skills. Communication to the
Behavioral Emphasis, 2nd edn. Champaign, IL: Human Annual Conference of the American Alliance for Health,
Kinetics. Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Cincinnati, OH,
Smyth, M.M. and Marriott, A.M. (1982). Vision and pro- March.
prioception in simple catching. Journal of Motor Behavior, West, K.L. and Bressan, E.S. (1996). The eþ ects of a general
14, 143± 152. versus speci® c visual skills training program on accuracy
Smythies, J. (1996). A note on the concept of the visual ® eld in in judging length-of-ball in cricket. International Journal
neurology, psychology, and visual neuroscience. Perception, of Sports Vision, 3, 41± 45.
25, 369± 371. Williams, J.M. and Thirer, J. (1975). Vertical and horizontal
Starkes, J.L. (1987). Skill in ® eld hockey: The nature of the peripheral vision in male and female athletes and non-
cognitive advantage. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 146± 160. athletes. Research Quarterly, 46, 200± 205.
Starkes, J.L. and Deakin, J. (1984). Perception in sport: A Wood, J.M. and Abernethy, B. (1997). An assessment of the
cognitive approach to skilled performance. In Cognitive eý cacy of sports vision training programs. Optometry and
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 16:17 31 October 2014

Sport Psychology (edited by W.F. Straub and J.M. Williams), Vision Science, 74, 646± 659.
pp. 115± 128. Lansing, NY: Sport Science Associates. Wood, J.M., Wild, J.M., Hussey, M.K. and Crews, S.J. (1987).
Stine, C.D., Arterbrun, M.R. and Stern, N.S. (1982). Vision Serial examination of the normal visual ® eld using Octopus
and sports: A review of the literature. Journal of the automated projection perimetry evidence for a learning
American Optometric Association, 53, 627± 633. eþ ect. Acta Ophthalmologica, 65, 326± 333.