PMDD
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- Mourent and Rockwell 1970
- novices tended to have smaller searches, less fix on mirrors, focus on lane markers, longer fix and pursuit eye trackin - mayb get less info and foveate
- Pelz and Krupat 1974
- corr of accident and convictions with hazard percept ability
- Lee and Triggs 1976
- less periph detect as higher eccentricity and higher demand
- Shinar et al 1978
- as go thru curve less fix dura and more fix
- nierra 1990
- use search strat to overcome periph loss
- evans et al 1991
- over rep of young is based on experience
- lee and horwood 1995
- most information from near and far but experienced make less near fixations - but novices focus more on near therefore maybe less peripheral view
- Rowe 1997
- when do task to interrupt central exec - less ability to hazard percept
- cundall and underwood 1998
- less fixations and more narrow, rigid search pattern - in higher demand therefore mayb havent learnt the flexible search pattern which exp have - but is it due to freeing of attentional demand or better strats to overcome periph prob
- crundall et al 1999
- in free viewing were able report more in periphery therefore mayb freeing of attentional demand
- mckenna and farrand 1999
- letter gen and haard perception - exp more effect therefore not using less but more attention
- jannelle et al 1999
- higher task demand - higher tunnell vision
- crundall and underwood 2002
- no better peropheral vision but were able to switch back to the primary task faster indicating better mediation of attentional resources
- Neisser 1976
- the skill in chess is in picking out the right information
- Abernethy and Russel 1987
- no dif in search patterns but took info earlier and used info from hand and raquet not just raq - gives prior knowledge of distinct relational of the display from which to extract info - justify use of temporal and spatial occlusion
- Bolthous 1991
- use strats to get over innate restrictions e.g anticipation for time lag
- erricsonn et al 1993
- 10 years of intentional, domain specific practise
- Prinz 1997
- common coding hypothesis
- vincent and wang 1998
- constraint attunment hypo
- Ward et al 2002
- exp tennis player more attuned to info in PLD
- Calvo-mofino et al 2005
- ballet dancers - more mirror neuron activity in response to watchin others
- calvo-mofin et al 2006
- esp if in own repetoire
- abernethy and zawi 2007
- can take stroke direction info from PLD
- abernethy and russel 2008
- can take more info from PLD, take more info from early on from lower body and from later from upper - also attuned to critical kinematics such as segments of movement which are relevant to torque transfers
- Whiting and Sharp 1974
- 300ms to decide TTC is critical
- Lee 1976
- first sugger tau
- schiffer and dettweiller 1979
- even when additional depth cues judge of TTC was just as accurate then wen just using looming
- Lee and reddish 1981
- diving gannets - seems to initiate wing fold at a given tau strategy - acts as a simple way to time action w/out recovering info
- lee et al 1983
- plotted time of initiation of elbow extensions and knee flewions compared to use of tau strat and found was case as initiated earlier for higher drops
- Warren et al 1986
- gait over bumby terrain
- bootsma 1989
- prob of take last 2s - plus more uncouple action from perception - more variable timing
- Davies and green 1990
- harris hawk and pigeon
- savelsberg et al 1991
- ball expansion looks like longer - so iniatiate catch later and looks smaller later and apeture showed this - for both mono and bino
- wang and frost 1992
- nucleus rotundus
- sun et al 1992
- gerbil
- Tresilian 1991
- not good for skilled timing if ahead of head, if small, if rotatin and non-sphrerical, and not constant vel
- tresilian, 1993
- just as well acount for lee et al 1983 if initiate punch as soon as release
- wann 1996
- problems with lee et al the way the chart is displayed, prob with savel that not as much as would be expected and problem with gannets is if take 3 of 55 out can be as well accounted for by proportion of drop - also they dive as little as 31cm which means when they initiate wing fold dropped as little as 1% of height as much as would on windy day
- Rushton and Wann 1999
- altered seperation or size seperate and used whichever showed earliest - most weight
- Gray and Regan 2000
- if bino then use that when rotate and non-spherical
- smith et al 2001
- when get used to two balls put more weight to optic expansion threshold
- Michaels et al 2001
- punch - found some use expasion some use tau strategy - when seated and when filmed so account for drag and for eye move - and looked at individual
- mcintrye et al 2001
- gravity
- tresilian et al 2004
- not for nine balls not enough certainty and familiarity
- Lopez-moliner et al 2007
- can set threshold of optic expasion if known size - dnt have to update, less effect of accell and parabol and if bino can switch
- Schmarler et al 1976
- cant detect exact changes in accell
- McLeod and Deines 1993
- always run and optic velocity was constant not know where
- McBeath et al 1995
- depth cues e.g acclusion, disp, accomo and spatial location useless- therefore need to use OT - outside of vertical trajectory can simplify determination of direction - can see curve best - straight ahead is accidental view, 71% paths curved, 75% speed, and optic speed went down 60% therefore not consistent, 96% of variance of projection angles
- Tresilian 1995
- when used two dif weight balls which lead to varied paths bcos of air resistance and showed reacted like were using tau
- chodosh 1996
- look at and saw were standing, bcos throw and cant look the whole way, maybe just an amatuer strat 83*
- Dannemiller et al 1996
- can detect that velocity has changed, prob with lookin plus curve is shit, and go in entirely the wrong way if use LOT
- Jacobs et al 1996
- looked at behaviour of catcher in reaction to actual hitter- strat used was not LOT
- Land and Mcleod 2000
- cricket
- Mcleod et al 2001
- replotted and found that of 88 only 51 pred by LOT and 81 by oac - 2nd did hits more like mcb rather then tan a and tan b - tan a was always up and b was mostly but not in prop
- mcleod et al 2002
- replotted some which went behind - and found lot would say ahead - but vertical velocity was constant
- mcleod et al 2003
- ist to talk about goac
- zaal and michales 2003
- immersive vr support
- mcleod et al 2006
- plotted sum runners compared to simulation of what would be done if hard or easy catch - bcos b and a usually not proportion best to uncouple - cant explain straight on and no matter how close 2 plane or how much time
- mcleod et al 2008
- change traj at zenith and altered runneing to cancel change in trajectory - in lateral used lot only in certain circumstances
- schaffer et al 2008
- frisby and lot account for 90% of variance therefore general strat