July 2013
Volume 13, Issue 9
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2013
Common Coding Not Supported: Expert and Novice Throwers Viewing Point-Light Displays of Self vs Other’s Throwing Motions to Judge Target Locations
Author Affiliations
  • Qin Zhu
    Kinesiology and Health, University of Wyoming
  • Andrew Wilson
    Department of Psychology, Leeds Metropolitan University
  • Geoffrey Bingham
    Department of Brain and Psychological Sciences, Indiana University
Journal of Vision July 2013, Vol.13, 761. doi:10.1167/13.9.761
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Qin Zhu, Andrew Wilson, Geoffrey Bingham; Common Coding Not Supported: Expert and Novice Throwers Viewing Point-Light Displays of Self vs Other’s Throwing Motions to Judge Target Locations. Journal of Vision 2013;13(9):761. doi: 10.1167/13.9.761.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Introduction The Common Coding Theory (Prinz, 1997; Hommel et al., 2001) suggests that perception and action share a common representation and hypothesizes accordingly: 1) people should better perceive motions that are produced by their own action; 2) people should better perceive actions at which they are skilled. We now test these hypotheses using point-light displays of experts throwing to hit targets at different distances and heights. Methods Using videos of 6 experts throwing to hit targets at 3 distances (5m, 10m, 15m) and 3 heights (.5m, 1m, 1.5m) 5 times each, we created 45 point-light displays for expert and novice throwers to judge the distance and height of targets. Point lights were attached to 7 major joints of the thrower including the ball and only throwing motion was displayed up to ball release. Expert and novice throwers judged displays of throws by other experts. Experts also judged displays of themselves. Results All observers were well above chance in judging distance (54.8%±8.1>33.3%), height (51.4%±8.6>33.3%) and both (28.6%±9>11.1%). A repeated-measures ANOVA on expert judgments testing identity (self, other) was significant for distance (F1,5 = 8.66, p<0.05, self: 52%, other: 62%), and for height (F1,5 = 9.31 , p<0.05, self: 48%, other: 56%). Other was always judged better than self! A factorial ANOVA on judgments of other testing skill level (expert, novice) was significant for distance (F1,10 = 9.55, p <0.01, experts: 62%, novices: 50%), but not for height (p>0.05, experts: 56%, novices: 50%). Conclusion The first hypothesis was rejected because experts judging other were better than they judging self. The second hypothesis was only partly supported because experts judging other were better than novices judging other only in respect to distance, not height.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×