رشد و یادگیری حرکتی ورزشی

مجله علمی

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

اعضای هیات تحریریه

فرایند پذیرش مقالات

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پرسش‌های متداول

اخبار و اعلانات

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

پیوندهای مفید

سیاست های دسترسی آزاد

سیاست کپی رایت

سیاست های مربوط به سرقت ادبی

سیاست های مربوط به آرشیو مقالات

سیاست های مربوط به محرمانه بودن

سیاستهای مالی

داوران

راهنمای عضویت و ثبت داوری در Publons

مقایسه چشم ساکن در کودکان با تبحر حرکتی بالا و پایین

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی Released under CC BY-NC 4.0 license I Open Access I

نویسندگان

1 کارشناسی‌ارشد رفتار حرکتی دانشکدۀ تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه رفتار حرکتی، دانشکدۀ تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، تهران، ایران

3 استاد گروه رفتار حرکتی، دانشکدۀ تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

هدف مطالعۀ حاضر مقایسۀ چشم ساکن کودکان با تبحر حرکتی بالا و پایین بود. در این مطالعۀ علی ـ مقایسه‌ای، 40 کودک 7 تا 14 ساۀ شهر اصفهان به‌صورت نمونه‌گیری خوشه‌ای چندمرحله‌ای انتخاب شدند. شرکت‌کنندگان در مطالعۀ حاضر تکلیف پرتاب کردن و دریافت کردن را 10 مرتبه انجام دادند. هنگام اجرای تکلیف موردنظر، داده‌های چشم ساکن به‌وسیلۀ دستگاه ردیابی چشم مدل ارگونیر (Ergoneers) ثبت و توسط نرم‌افزار Dikablis 3.1، تحلیل شد. پس از بررسی نرمال بودن داده‌ها، داده‌ها به روش آماری تی مستقل و ضریب همبستگی پیرسون در سطح معنا‌داری 05/0تحلیل شد. نتایج آزمون تی مستقل نشان داد که کودکان با تبحر حرکتی بالا در شروع چشم ساکن (0001/0 P=)، پایان چشم ساکن (023/0 P=)، دوره چشم ساکن (0001/0 P=) و عملکرد گرفتن (0001/0 P=) در مقایسه با کودکان با تبحر حرکتی پایین بهتر عمل کردند. همچنین نتایج نشان داد که در هر دو گروه کودکان با تبحر حرکتی بالا و پایین، بین عملکرد گرفتن با شروع چشم ساکن ارتباط منفی معنادار و با پایان چشم ساکن و دورۀ چشم ساکن ارتباط مثبت معنا‌داری وجود دارد. به‌طور کلی نتایج تحقیق حاضر نشان داد که متغیر چشم ساکن از متغیرهای مؤثر و مرتبط با عملکرد حرکتی و همچنین متناسب با سطح خبرگی است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Compression of Quiet Eye in Children with High and Low Motor Proficiency

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hamed Fahimi 1
  • Elahe Arabameri 2
  • Rasool Hemayat ‌Talab 3

1 . MSc of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 . Associate Professor, Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Professor, Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

The aim of this study was to compare quiet eye in children with high and low motor proficiency. In this causal-comparative study, 40 children (7 to 14 years old) in Isfahan city were selected by multiple cluster sampling method. Participants performed throwing and catching task in 10 trials. The data of quiet eyes were recorded by an eye tracking device (Ergoneers) and analyzed by Dikablis 3.1 software when performing the desired task.  After the evaluation of data normality, the data were analyzed by independent t test and Pearson correlation coefficient at the significance level of 0.05. Independent t test results showed that children with high motor proficiency were better in the onset of QE (P=0.0001), offset of QE (P=0.023), QE duration (P=0.0001) and catching performance (P=0.0001) than children with lower motor proficiency. Also, the results showed a significant negative relationship between the catching performance and the onset of QE and a significant positive relationship between the catching performance and the offset of QE and QE duration in both groups of children with high and low motor proficiency. The results of the study generally revealed that the QE is considered as an effective variables associated with motor performance and appropriate to expertise level.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Age differences
  • catching performance
  • children
  • eye movements
  • motor skill
مراجع
1.   Land MF. Vision, eye movements, and natural behavior. Vis Neurosci. 2009;26(1):51–62.
2.   Lee DH. The role of the quiet eye in golf putting. Stocker Rd, Exeter EX4 4PY, UK Exeter; 2015.
3.   Vickers JN. Perception, cognition, and decision training : the quiet eye in action. Human Kinetics; 2007. 267 p.
4.   Vickers JN. Gaze control in putting. Perception. 1992;21(1):117–23.
5.   Causer J.Janel C,Vickers J WM. Perceptual training: What can be trained. 2nd ed. Routledge London. London,UK:; 2012. 306–324 p.
6.   Vickers JN. Visual control when aiming at a far target. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1996;22(2):342–54.
7.   Wilson MR, Causer J, Vickers JN. Aiming for excellence: The quiet eye as a characteristic of expertise. Routledge handbook of sport expertise. 2015. 22–37 p.
8.   Harle SK, Vickers JN. Training quiet eye improves accuracy in the basketball free throw. Sport Psychol. 2001;15(3):289–305.
9.   Janelle CM, Hillman CH, Apparies RJ, Murray NP, Meili L, Fallon EA, et al. Expertise Differences in Cortical Activation and Gaze Behavior during Rifle Shooting. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2000 Jun 1;22(2):167–82.
10.           Oudejans RRD, Koedijker JM, Bleijendaal I, Bakker FC. The education of attention in aiming at a far target: Training visual control in basketball jump shooting. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2005 Jan;3(2):197–221.
11.           Oudejans RRD, Van De Langenberg RW, Hutter RI. Aiming at a far target under different viewing conditions: Visual control in basketball jump shooting. Hum Mov Sci. 2002;21(4):457–80.
12.           Vickers JN. Control of visual attention during the basketball free throw. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(6):93–7.
13.           Vickers JN, Williams AM. Performing under pressure: the effects of physiological arousal, cognitive anxiety, and gaze control in biathlon. J Mot Behav. 2007;39(5):381–94.
14.           Causer J, Bennett SJ, Holmes PS, Janelle CM, Williams AM. Quiet eye duration and gun motion in elite shotgun shooting. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(8):1599–608.
15.           Vickers JN. The quiet eye : it ’ s the difference between a good putter and a poor one . Here ’ s proof. Golf Dig. 2004;(June):96–101.
16.           Williams AM, Singer RN, Frehlich SG. Quiet eye duration, expertise, and task complexity in near and far aiming tasks. J Mot Behav. 2002;34(2):197–207.
17.           Adolphe RM, Vickers JN, Laplante G. The effects of training visual attention on gaze behaviour and accuracy: A pilot study. Int J Sport Vis. 1997;4(1):28–33.
18.           McPherson SL, Vickers JN. Cognitive control in motor expertise. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2004;2(3):274–300.
19.           Panchuk D, Vickers JN. Gaze behaviors of goaltenders under spatial-temporal constraints. Hum Mov Sci. 2006;25(6):733–52.
20.           Vickers JN, Adolphe RM. Gaze behaviour during a ball tracking and aiming skill. Int J Sport Vis. 1997;4(1):18–27.
21.           Williams AM, Vickers J, Rodrigues S. The effects of anxiety on visual search, movement kinematics, and performance in table tennis: A test of Eysenck and Calvo’s processing efficiency theory. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2002;24(4):438–55.
22.           Singer RN, Williams AM, Frehlich SG, Janelle CM, Radlo SJ, Barba DA, et al. New frontiers in visual search: An exploratory study in live tennis situations. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1998;69(3):290–6.
23.           Martell SG, Vickers JN. Gaze characteristics of elite and near-elite athletes in ice hockey defensive tactics. Hum Mov Sci. 2004 Apr;22(6):689–712.
24.           Williams AM, Davids K. Visual search strategy, selective attention, and expertise in soccer. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1998 Jun 1;69(2):111–28.
25.           Nagano T, Kato T, Fukuda T. Visual behaviors of soccer players while kicking with the inside of the foot. Percept Mot Skills. 2006 Feb;102(1):147–56.
26.           Radlo SJ, Janelle CM, Barba DA, Frehlich SG. Perceptual decision making for baseball pitch recognition: Using P300 latency and amplitude to index attentional processing. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2001;72(1):22–31.
27.           Causer J, Holmes PS, Williams AM. Quiet eye training in a visuomotor control task. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(6):1042–9.
28.           Barnett L, van Beurden E, Morgan P, Brooks L, Beard J. Do Skilled Children Become Active Adolescents? Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2008 May;40(Supplement):S96.
29.           Wilson MR, Miles CAL, Vine SJ, Vickers JN. Quiet eye distinguishes children of high and low motor coordination abilities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(6):1144–51.
30.           Wilson MR, Pearcy RC. Visuomotor Control of Straight and Breaking Golf Putts. Percept Mot Skills. 2010;109(2):555–62.
31.           Panchuk D, Vickers JN. Effect of narrowing the base of support on the gait, gaze and quiet eye of elite ballet dancers and controls. Cogn Process. 2011 Aug;12(3):267–76.
32.           Mann DTY, Coombes SA, Mousseau MB, Janelle CM. Quiet eye and the Bereitschaftspotential: Visuomotor mechanisms of expert motor performance. Cogn Process. 2011;12(3):223–34.
33.           Tsai CL, Pan CY, Chang YK, Wang CH, Tseng K Da. Deficits of visuospatial attention with reflexive orienting induced by eye-gazed cues in children with developmental coordination disorder in the lower extremities: An event-related potential study. Res Dev Disabil. 2010 May;31(3):642–55.
34.           Flanagan JR, Bowman MC, Johansson RS. Control strategies in object manipulation tasks. Vol. 16, Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 2006. p. 650–9.
35.           Langaas T, Mon-Williams M, Wann JP, Pascal E, Thompson C. Eye movements, prematurity and developmental co-ordination disorder. Vision Res. 1998 Jun;38(12):1817–26.
36.           Giovinco NA, Sutton SM, Miller JD, Rankin TM, Gonzalez GW, Najafi B, et al. A Passing Glance? Differences in Eye Tracking and Gaze Patterns Between Trainees and Experts Reading Plain Film Bunion Radiographs. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2015 May 1;54(3):382–91.
37.           Piras A, Lobietti R, Squatrito S. Response time, visual search strategy, and anticipatory skills in volleyball players. J Ophthalmol. 2014;2014.
38.           Piras A, Pierantozzi E, Squatrito S. Visual search strategy in judo fighters during the execution of the first grip. Int J Sport Sci Coach. 2014 Feb 1;9(1):185–97.
39.           Alder D, Ford PR, Causer J, Williams AM. The coupling between gaze behavior and opponent kinematics during anticipation of badminton shots. Hum Mov Sci. 2014;37:167–79.
40.           Harvey A, Vickers JN, Snelgrove R, Scott MF, Morrison S. Expert surgeon’s quiet eye and slowing down: Expertise differences in performance and quiet eye duration during identification and dissection of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Am J Surg. 2014 Feb;207(2):187–93.
41.           Millslagle DG, Hines BB, Smith MS. Quiet eye gaze behavior of expert, and near-expert, baseball plate umpires. Percept Mot Skills. 2013 Feb;116(1):69–77.
42.           Fischer L, Rienhoff R, Tirp J, Baker J, Strauss B, Schorer J. Retention of Quiet Eye in Older Skilled Basketball Players. J Mot Behav. 2015;47(5).
43.           Vickers JN. Mind over muscle: The role of gaze control, spatial cognition, and the quiet eye in motor expertise. Cogn Process. 2011;12(3):219–21.
44.           Badami R, Nezakatalhossaini M, Rajab fahimehi, Jafari M. Validity and Reliability of Movement Assessment Battery for Children (M-ABC) in 6-Year-Old Children of Isfahan City. J Mot Learn Mov. 2015 Apr 21;7(1):105–22.
45.           Henderson SE, Sugden DA, Barnett AL. Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2: MABC-2. Pearson Assessment; 2007.
46.           Bonney E, Jelsma D, Ferguson G, Smits-Engelsman B. Variable training does not lead to better motor learning compared to repetitive training in children with and without DCD when exposed to active video games. Res Dev Disabil. 2017;62:124–36.
47.           Corbetta M, Patel G, Shulman G. The Reorienting System of the Human Brain: From Environment to Theory of Mind. Neuron. 2008;58:306–24.
رشد و یادگیری حرکتی ورزشی
دوره 11، شماره 3
آذر 1398
صفحه 281-293
فایل ها
سابقه مقاله
  • تاریخ دریافت: 22 اردیبهشت 1395
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 12 آذر 1398
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 16 بهمن 1395
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار