Quiet Eye Distinguishes Children of High and Low Motor Coordination Abilities (2013)
- Wilson, M.R., Miles, C.A.L., Vine, S.J. & Vickers, J.N.
- Published in Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise (MSSE), vol. 45, pgs. 1144-1151.
- Link to paper…
PURPOSE: This is the first study to use the quiet eye (QE) as an objective measure of visuomotor control underpinning proficiency differences in children’s motor coordination. METHODS: Fifty-seven, year 5 primary school children (9-10 years old) completed the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (2 Edition; MABC-2) while wearing a gaze registration system. Participants were subsequently divided into one of three ability groups; high motor coordination (HMC), median motor coordination (MMC) and low motor coordination (LMC) based on these MABC-2 scores (Mean % Rank: HMC = 84%; MMC = 51%; LMC = 19%). QE analyses were performed for the fourth task of the MABC-2, which involved throwing a tennis ball against a wall and catching it on the return. RESULTS: The HMC group was more successful in the catching task than both other groups (Catching percentage: HMC = 92%; MMC = 62%; LMC = 35%), and demonstrated superior visuomotor control throughout the throwing and catching phases of the task. Compared to the other groups, the HMC group demonstrated longer targeting QE fixations prior to release of the ball (HMC = 500ms; MMC = 410ms; LMC = 260ms); and longer tracking QE durations prior to catching (HMC = 260ms; MMC = 200ms; LMC = 150ms). There were no significant differences in ball flight time between the groups. Mediation analyses revealed that only the duration of the tracking QE predicted group differences in catching ability. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the ability to predict and calibrate movements based on sensory feedback may be impaired in children with movement coordination difficulties, and have implications for how they are taught fundamental movement skills.
Quiet eye training improves throw and catch performance in children (2014)
- Miles, C.A.L., Vine, S.J., Wood, G., Vickers, J.N., & Wilson, M.R.
- Published in Psychology of Sport and Exercise, vol. 15, pgs. 511-515
- Link to paper…
Objectives: To compare quiet eye training (QET) and ‘traditional’ technical training (TT) interventions for a throw and catch task in children. Design: This pilot study adopted a between groups randomized control design. Method: 16, ten year-old typically developing children performed 10 pre- and 10 post-test trials before and after QET or TT, while wearing a Mobile Eye gaze registration system. Both interventions consisted of three video demonstrations (focusing on the throw, the catch, and linking the throw and catch) followed by a series of practice trials. QET videos emphasized gaze strategy instructions whereas TT videos emphasized traditional primary school throwing and catching instructions. Results: Significant interaction effects for performance and quiet eye durations revealed that only the QET group significantly lengthened QE durations, which contributed to significant improvements in catching from pre- to post-test. Conclusions: QET may be an effective method for improving throwing and catching skills in typically developing children.
Quiet eye training facilitates visuomotor coordination in children with developmental coordination disorder (2015)
- Miles, C.A.L., Wood, G., Vine, S.J., Vickers, J.N., & Wilson, M.R.
- Published in Research of Developmental Disabilities, vol. 40, pgs. 31-41
- Link to paper…
Introduction: Quiet eye training (QET) has been shown to be more effective than traditional training (TT) methods for teaching a throw and catch task to typically developing 8–10 yr old children. The current study aimed to apply the technique to children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). Method: 30 children with DCD were randomly allocated into TT or QET intervention groups. The TT group were taught how to control their arm movements during the throw and catch phases, while the QET group were also taught to fixate a target location on the wall prior to the throw (quiet eye1; QE1), followed by tracking the ball prior to the catch (quiet eye2; QE2). Performance, gaze and motion analysis data were collected at pre/post training and 6-week retention. Results: The QET group significantly increased QE durations from pre-training to delayed retention (QE1 = +247 ms, QE2 = +19%) whereas the TT group experienced a reduction (QE1 = 74 ms, QE2 = 4%). QET participants showed significant improvement in the quality of their catch attempts and increased elbow flexion at catch compared to the TT group (QET = 288, TT = 18). Conclusion: QET changed DCD children’s ability to focus on a target on the wall prior to the throw, followed by better anticipation and pursuit tracking on the ball, which in turn led to improved catching technique. QET may be an effective adjunct to traditional instructions, for therapists teaching visuomotor skills to children with DCD.