Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, Research Institute MOVE, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010 Aug;36(4):1040-55. doi: 10.1037/a0016890.
In an influential study, R. J. Bootsma and P. C. W. van Wieringen (1990) argued that 2 of their 5 participants used visual information continuously during the attacking forehand drive in table tennis, its brief duration vis-à-vis the visuomotor delay notwithstanding. The authors repeated Bootsma and van Wieringen's experiment and included a condition in which vision was obscured after drive initiation. The authors replicated most of Bootsma and van Wieringen's findings but found no significant differences between the full-vision and no-vision conditions, which goes against the interpretation of these findings as evidence for continuous visual guidance. A subsequent simulation study found that a single preprogrammed muscle stimulation pattern resulted in spatiotemporal convergence similar to that observed experimentally but not in other important behavioral characteristics. The results contain no indications that visual information that becomes available after drive initiation affects arm motion and suggest that a form of model-based predictive control is operative rather than continuous visual guidance.
在一项有影响力的研究中,R. J. Bootsma 和 P. C. W. van Wieringen(1990)认为,他们的 5 名参与者中有 2 名在乒乓球的正手攻击中连续使用视觉信息,尽管其持续时间与视觉运动延迟相比很短。作者重复了 Bootsma 和 van Wieringen 的实验,并在驱动启动后遮挡了视觉。作者复制了 Bootsma 和 van Wieringen 的大部分发现,但在全视觉和无视觉条件之间没有发现显著差异,这与将这些发现解释为连续视觉指导的证据相悖。随后的一项模拟研究发现,单个预编程的肌肉刺激模式导致的时空收敛与实验观察到的相似,但在其他重要的行为特征方面却没有。结果没有表明驱动启动后获得的视觉信息会影响手臂运动,并表明操作的是基于模型的预测控制而不是连续的视觉指导。