Why the slow paced world could make it difficult to catch a ball...

Aug 04, 2008

BBSRC researchers at the University of Birmingham have uncovered new information about the way that we perceive fast moving, incoming objects – such as tennis or cricket balls. The new research, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), studies why the human brain has difficulty perceiving fast moving objects coming from straight ahead; something that should be a key survival skill. The research has implications for understanding how top-class sportspeople make decisions about playing a shot but could also be important for improving road safety and for the development of robotic vision systems.

The information that the brain uses to process moving objects and to estimate their likely trajectory – which can then be used to decide whether to move out of the way or how to play a shot or catch a ball – is biased by the generally slow moving world around us. Dr Andrew Welchman, a Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) David Phillips Fellow, has discovered that this bias affects the way we perceive and interpret objects approaching from dead ahead far more than objects moving side-to-side in our field of vision.

Dr Welchman explains: "We may think we live in a fast moving, hectic world, but statistically our environment moves around us slowly. Apart from the odd speeding car, buildings, landscape and walls around us all move past us at slow and predictable speeds. Our brains are constantly building up a statistical picture of the world around and, based on experience, it is a statistically slow world.

"When an object moves quickly – be it a football, cricket ball or, for our ancestors, a spear – our brains have to interpret the movement rapidly and, because our brains draw on experience, it's often biased by what it already knows. The less certain we are about what we see, the more we are influenced by the brain's statistical assumptions, which means in some circumstances we get it wrong."

The human visual system can interpret sideways movement better than it can the movement of objects straight towards us, and this affects our judgments about objects coming our way. Working with colleagues at the Max Planck Institute in Tuebingen, Germany, Dr Welchman developed a mathematical model to show how the brain predicts the motion of an incoming object and tested this with experiments. His model shows that our previous experience of the world around us guides our perception more for objects that come straight towards us than when objects move sideways. The result of this is that approaching objects can look slower than they are and we can believe and object will miss us when actually due to hit us.

Dr Welchman said: "Although it is not surprising that sportsmen who practice a lot build up a better statistical picture in their minds about where a ball might go, it is surprising that what should be a vital survival skill is based on such a trial and error learning experience."

The research has serious applications beyond the world of sports. Motorists driving in poor visual conditions such as fog often drive too fast for the conditions because they judge speed inappropriately. The poor visual information produced by fog means the brain relies more on its assumption that the world moves slowly, so the car's motion is judged slower than it actually is.

Dr Welchman said: "The research also has important long term application to robotics and assistive technologies. Capitalising on nature's design is a good way of building artificial visual systems for robots – as humans get visual judgments right a lot more often than the best current robot systems. Further, knowing the situations in which humans get it wrong is a useful starting point for the design of assistive devices to help correct those errors before they have serious consequences."

Source: Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

Explore further: Recombinant peptide for transplantation of pancreatic islets in mice models of diabetes

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Robots on reins could be the 'eyes' of firefighters

20 hours ago

Researchers at King's College London have developed revolutionary reins that enable robots to act like guide dogs, which could enable that firefighters moving through smoke-filled buildings could save vital ...

Unusual asteroid suspected of spinning to explosion

Mar 20, 2015

A team led by astronomers from the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland, recently used the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii to observe and measure a rare class of "active asteroids" that spontaneously ...

"Mini supernova" explosion could have big impact

Mar 16, 2015

In Hollywood blockbusters, explosions are often among the stars of the show. In space, explosions of actual stars are a focus for scientists who hope to better understand their births, lives, and deaths and ...

Assessing feedback interactions in a creative setting

Mar 11, 2015

Feedback - the objective response, opinion, or input - is something most of us experience either at work or amongst friends to bodies of work or projects that are complete. But in the world of creative processes - where no ...

Recommended for you

Novel nanoparticle therapy promotes wound healing

Mar 26, 2015

An experimental therapy developed by researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University cut in half the time it takes to heal wounds compared to no treatment at all. Details of the therapy, ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Icester
not rated yet Aug 05, 2008
Quote: "our previous experience of the world around us guides our perception more for objects that come straight towards us than when objects move sideways."

Doesn't this run counter to his next quote? "Although it is not surprising that sportsmen who practice a lot build up a better statistical picture in their minds about where a ball might go, it is surprising that what should be a vital survival skill is based on such a trial and error learning experience."

It sounds to me that our experience (and therefore statistical probability) builds our model of the world - not the fact of "vital survival skills".
These findings would then make perfect sense because very few objects come straight at us (statistically) compared to those that can be observed with sideways motion. Sportsmen have a considerably higher percentage of "things coming at them" that non-sportsmen - therefore it follows that their model for "things coming at them" would be better.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.