Tuesday 31 August 2010

A Look At Shooting


If you’re shooting inaccurately, it could be due to poor alignment with the target, or it could be due to body movement or hand/arm tremors as you fire. There are now pistols equipped with lasers to help distinguish between these errors. The laser isn’t turned on until the shooter has aimed. If the laser centres on the target, then the problem is with body movement and not with aiming.

Because of the distance between the gun’s sight and the target, both cannot be seen clearly. So should one focus on the sight or the target? The general consensus is that you should focus on the sight. This makes sense, as it intuitively seems easier to put a clear object in the centre of a blurred ring, than trying to put a clear ring equidistant around a blurred object. It also explains why some short-sighted people have been excellent marksmen. But it does cause problems for older shooters.

Unless one is short-sighted, one’s ability to focus close objects, such as a gun sight, goes down as one gets older. It’s possible, however, to have a correcting lens for this, and there are special shooting spectacles which can be adjusted to ensure that the lens is perfectly positioned.

Ripoll et al (1985) compared the gaze strategies of international elite pistol shooters with national near-elite shooters. They found that the near-elite looked at their hand and weapon as they brought it up towards the target, whereas the elite shooters fixated the target, and then brought the pistol into line with their gaze before aiming and pulling the trigger. Compared with the near-elite, the elite shooters were quick to bring the pistol into line, but then took longer to aim and complete the shot.

Although this might appear to contradict the advice to focus on the sight, and not the target, it’s likely that the elite shooters did their final aiming adjustment fixated on the sight, but because the sight and target were in alignment, no difference in gaze would be found by the cameras monitoring them.

The gaze strategy of elite shooters goes beyond sport. For some, it’s been a matter of life and death.

Joan Vickers (of “Quiet Eye” fame) and Bill Lewinski (Force Science Research Centre) studied members of Britain’s Emergency Response Team. 11 were highly experienced, and 13 were younger rookies who’d just completed their training.

They set up a scenario in which the subjects were to provide security at an Embassy. A man gets into an argument with the receptionist, and at some point turns around, taking an object from his coat pocket, which is either a gun or a mobile phone.

In more than 60% of trials, the trainees fired when the assailant brandished a mobile phone, compared with only 18% of elite trials. When the assailant pulled out a gun, elite officers shot first 92.5% of the time, compared with 42% for the trainees. The elite officers were also more accurate in their shooting, with the trainees more likely to miss the target completely.

In the last half-second before aiming, in 82% of their tests the trainees took their eyes off the assailant and attempted to look at their own gun, trying to find or confirm the sight alignment as they aimed. Although 30% of the elite also looked at their gun, these fixations were before they aimed (and fired).

When most officers learn to shoot a handgun, they are taught to focus first on the rear sight, then on the front sight, and finally on the target, aligning all three before pulling the trigger. It seems that through experience, the elite officers had learned to keep most of their attention on the assailant’s weapon. Like Ripoll’s elite shooters, they kept their gaze on the assailant’s weapon and brought their gun up into their line of sight.

This research by Vickers & Lewinski is likely to result in changes to the way that officers learn to shoot. If this had been done before, might Jean Charles de Menezes still be alive today? DD

If you’re shooting inaccurately, it could be due to poor alignment with the target, or it could be due to body movement or hand/arm tremors as you fire. There are now pistols equipped with lasers to help distinguish between these errors. The laser isn’t turned on until the shooter has aimed. If the laser centres on the target, then the problem is with body movement and not with aiming.

Because of the distance between the gun’s sight and the target, both cannot be seen clearly. So should one focus on the sight or the target? The general consensus is that you should focus on the sight. This makes sense, as it intuitively seems easier to put a clear object in the centre of a blurred ring, than trying to put a clear ring equidistant around a blurred object. It also explains why some short-sighted people have been excellent marksmen. But it does cause problems for older shooters.

Unless one is short-sighted, one’s ability to focus close objects, such as a gun sight, goes down as one gets older. It’s possible, however, to have a correcting lens for this, and there are special shooting spectacles which can be adjusted to ensure that the lens is perfectly positioned.

Ripoll et al (1985) compared the gaze strategies of international elite pistol shooters with national near-elite shooters. They found that the near-elite looked at their hand and weapon as they brought it up towards the target, whereas the elite shooters fixated the target, and then brought the pistol into line with their gaze before aiming and pulling the trigger. Compared with the near-elite, the elite shooters were quick to bring the pistol into line, but then took longer to aim and complete the shot.

Although this might appear to contradict the advice to focus on the sight, and not the target, it’s likely that the elite shooters did their final aiming adjustment fixated on the sight, but because the sight and target were in alignment, no difference in gaze would be found by the cameras monitoring them.

The gaze strategy of elite shooters goes beyond sport. For some, it’s been a matter of life and death.

Joan Vickers (of “Quiet Eye” fame) and Bill Lewinski (Force Science Research Centre) studied members of Britain’s Emergency Response Team. 11 were highly experienced, and 13 were younger rookies who’d just completed their training.

They set up a scenario in which the subjects were to provide security at an Embassy. A man gets into an argument with the receptionist, and at some point turns around, taking an object from his coat pocket, which is either a gun or a mobile phone.

In more than 60% of trials, the trainees fired when the assailant brandished a mobile phone, compared with only 18% of elite trials. When the assailant pulled out a gun, elite officers shot first 92.5% of the time, compared with 42% for the trainees. The elite officers were also more accurate in their shooting, with the trainees more likely to miss the target completely.

In the last half-second before aiming, in 82% of their tests the trainees took their eyes off the assailant and attempted to look at their own gun, trying to find or confirm the sight alignment as they aimed. Although 30% of the elite also looked at their gun, these fixations were before they aimed (and fired).

When most officers learn to shoot a handgun, they are taught to focus first on the rear sight, then on the front sight, and finally on the target, aligning all three before pulling the trigger. It seems that through experience, the elite officers had learned to keep most of their attention on the assailant’s weapon. Like Ripoll’s elite shooters, they kept their gaze on the assailant’s weapon and brought their gun up into their line of sight.

This research by Vickers & Lewinski is likely to result in changes to the way that officers learn to shoot. If this had been done before, might Jean Charles de Menezes still be alive today?

"http://www.donneroptometrists.co.uk/sports-vision.htm"

Wednesday 11 August 2010

Brain Waves

Does the study of brain waves help us distinguish experts from novices, and can brain waves be altered to improve performance?
Four types of brain wave have been identified. Alpha waves (8 – 14 Hz) are seen when we are relaxed, daydreaming or visualising. Increases in alpha waves are often associated with reduced overall activity of the brain. Beta waves (15 – 38 Hz) are associated with conscious thought, with higher frequency beta being associated with anxiety or stress. Gamma and delta waves are mostly seen in different stages of sleep.
Neurofeedback, also known as EEG biofeedback, is a strategy to enable people to alter their own brainwaves. It has been used in the treatment of ADHD (Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder). Often the patient is using a videogame that’s linked to their EEG, and the aim is usually to increase beta waves and reduce theta waves. When the desired effect is taking place, they get some kind of encouragement in the game, such as beep or a character moving in the desired direction.
Neurofeedback has also been used to improve the balance of patients who have suffered brain injury or stroke. Significant improvements have been found after just 8 – 10 sessions, whereas ADHD treatments usually take 40 – 50 sessions.
Before trying neurofeedback to improve sporting ability, one would need to know if experts demonstrate different brainwave activity compared with lesser players. And there is actually some evidence for that. It’s hard to play rugby or football when attached to the electrodes of EEG equipment, so most of the evidence comes from aiming sports, such as archery, shooting and golf putting.
Haufler et al (2000) found that during aiming, when marksmen were compared with novice shooters, marksmen exhibited less activation (increased alpha with less beta and gamma activity) at all electrode sites on the head, but especially in the left hemisphere. Kerick et al (2001) looked at skilled marksmen during shooting. Over an 8-second period preceding the pull of the trigger, they exhibited greater alpha activity in the left temporal area compared with when they were doing a control activity. Hatfield et al (1984) also found a progressive increase in alpha power in the left temporal area during the last 7.5 seconds of aiming, with no change in the right temporal area.
These results could fit in with the idea that the left hemisphere dominates in language, and that a lot of verbal thoughts could inhibit efficient sporting performance.
Landers et al (1991) used neurofeedback to try and improve the performance of pre-elite archers. On the basis that reduced cortical activity in the left hemisphere (associated with increased alpha waves and reduced beta waves) would increase accuracy, the archers were randomly assigned to one of three groups. One group was given “correct” feedback (reduced left hemisphere activity), another “incorrect” feedback (reduced right hemisphere activity), and a control with no feedback.
They found that those trained to have reduced left temporal activity showed a significant improvement in performance, whilst those trained to have reduced right temporal activity showed a significantly worse performance. The control group showed no change.
However, there’s a problem. Examination of the participants’ EEG spectra failed to show a clear pattern of change after the test compared with beforehand. It’s as if the feedback changed something, but not what it was supposed to.
Also, the link between brain waves and sport performance turns out not to be as simple as first thought. For instance, Del Percio et al (2007) found a correlation between a reduction in alpha output in part of the right hemisphere and skilled karate performance. In contrast, Collins et al (1990) found that skilled karate performance was linked to a bilateral increase in alpha output.
Crews & Landers (1994) found that in the last second before a golf putt, increased alpha waves in the right hemisphere were associated with increased putting accuracy. This is in contrast with the increase in the left hemisphere that had been found in shooting and archery. Looking at putting novices, however, Shelley-Trembley et al (2006) found that lower beta levels in the right hemisphere correlated with accuracy.
So it seems that we need to understand brain waves rather better before we can be sure that trying to change them will improve performance. Oh well, back to practise then.

David

www.donneroptometrists.co.uk