The Integration of Tactile and Visual Cues Increases Golf Putting Error in a Mixed-Reality Paradigm.

The integration of visual and tactile cues can enhance perception. However, the nature of this integration, and the subsequent benefits on perception and action execution, are context-dependent. Here, we examined how visual-tactile integration can influence performance on a complex motor task using virtual reality. We asked participants to wear a VR head-mounted display while using a tracked physical putter to make golf putts on a VR golf course in two conditions. In the ‘tactile’ condition, putter contact with the virtual golf ball coincided with physical contact with a physical ball. In a second ‘no tactile’ condition, no physical ball was present, such that only the virtual ball contacted the putter. In contrast to our pre-registered prediction that performance would benefit from the integration of visual and tactile cues, we found golf putting accuracy was higher in the no tactile condition compared to the tactile condition. Participants exhibited higher lateral error variance and over/undershooting when the physical ball was present. These differences in performance between the conditions suggest that tactile cues, when available, were integrated with visual cues. Second, this integration is not necessarily beneficial to performance. We suggest that the decreased performance caused by the addition of a physical ball may have been due to minor incongruencies between the virtual visual cues and the physical tactile cues. We discuss the implications of these results on the use of VR sports training and highlight that the absence of matched tactile cues in VR can result in sub-optimal learning and performance.

Golf-Putting Performance in Skilled Golfers at Different Distances to the Hole

Golf putting occurs under highly variable conditions. Therefore, adapting to different putting distances is a challenge that the golfer faces and understanding the variables underlying performance in this task is important. The main objective of this study was to analyse the golf-putting performance in skilled golfers at different distances to the hole. Fourteen highly skilled golfers, adult male and right-handed (41.5 ± 13.2 years with an average handicap of 2.3 ± 1.7) performed the golf putting on a natural grass green, completing a total of 120 randomly ordered trials, 30 trials at each of the four different practice conditions (1, 2, 3, and 4 m away from the hole). A smart engineered putter (InPutter) was used as the data acquisition instrument to record several process variables at 100 Hz. Results indicated that golf-putting distances constrained movement organisation variables in specific ways. For example, as the distance to the hole changes, so do the informational constraints, shaping how a golfer needs to regulate performance. We concluded that the effects of different golf-putting distances required the implementation of functional solutions uniquely adjusted to each player. Furthermore, the perception that the player withdrew from the properties of the context (e.g., distance to the hole) was important to adapt the golf-putting process variables (e.g., amplitude and duration of the movement, among others). All these factors led to a decisive influence on how the golfer hit the ball and adjusted his performance. A major implication of developing a better understanding of the role of performance in golf putting is that coaches and players should allow functional movement behaviours to emerge during practice.

Expecting to teach a novel golf putting task did not enhance retention performance: A replication attempt of Daou and colleagues

While research has identified several practice variables that purportedly enhance motor learning, recent replication failures highlight the importance of conducting high-powered, pre-registered replications. The "expecting to teach" phenomenon was first reported in the motor learning literature by Daou and colleagues and suggested learners benefit from practicing with the understanding they will later need to teach the skill. The extant data have been mixed but generally positive. While expecting to teach has been shown to enhance motor learning of a golf putt, the mechanisms linked with this benefit are yet to be determined. As such, this study sought to replicate the expecting to teach effect and to extend those findings by exploring participants’ thought processes. Participants (N = 76) were randomly assigned to one of two groups in which they were told that they were learning a golf putt in order to 1) be tested on the skill or 2) teach the skill to another individual. On Day 1, participants completed pre-test putts, a pre-acquisition intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI), a 2-minute study of an instructional booklet, 50 practice putts and a post-acquisition IMI. During practice, participants were also afforded opportunities to continue studying the booklet and to complete additional putts. Participants returned 24 hours later to complete a retention, a transfer (50-cm longer golf-putt), and a free recall test, as well as a post-study survey to reveal thoughts they engaged in after practice but before (or during) the retention test. Similar to Daou et al., no significant differences were found with study time, number of acquisition putts, or motivation. However, golf-putting performance during retention resulted in no differences for radial error, g = -0.13 (95% C.I. [-0.55, 0.29]), between the two groups and no differences were shown for the recall test. The present study fails to replicate the benefits reported in the original experiments.

Investigating low-dose herbicide programs for goosegrass (Eleusine indica) and smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) control on creeping bentgrass greens

Only four herbicides are registered for smooth crabgrass or goosegrass control on creeping bentgrass golf putting greens. None of the four herbicides control weedy grasses for the entire season or control weeds postemergence when applied once at labeled rates. Three of these have product labels that prohibit repeated use or application during stressful summer conditions. We hypothesized frequently applying herbicides at low doses could provide season-long control of summer grasses while minimizing turf injury. Seven field experiments were conducted on creeping bentgrass putting greens to evaluate various herbicides applied monthly, biweekly, or weekly for postemergence and residual control of goosegrass and smooth crabgrass as well as creeping bentgrass putting green tolerance. Metamifop applied twice monthly at 200 g ai ha−1, topramezone applied eight times weekly at 1.5 g ae ha−1, and siduron applied weekly at 5.6 kg ai ha−1 or four times biweekly at 11 kg ha−1 did not injure creeping bentgrass greater than 10% and maintained creeping bentgrass quality and cover equivalent to nontreated turf. Weekly or biweekly programs of fenoxaprop or quinclorac caused unacceptable injury and quality decline. Metamifop applied monthly and either fenoxaprop program controlled both smooth crabgrass and goosegrass 97 to 99% throughout the growing season. Programs containing either quinclorac or siduron controlled smooth crabgrass 99 to 100% but did not control goosegrass greater than 39%. All topramezone programs controlled smooth crabgrass 69 to 77% and goosegrass 93 to 98%. In additional studies, siduron applied five times biweekly did not injure creeping bentgrass putting greens and controlled smooth crabgrass greater than 90% at seasonal, cumulative rates between 17 and 65 kg ai ha−1. This method of frequent, low-dose herbicide treatment to control smooth crabgrass and goosegrass on golf putting greens is novel and could be legally implemented currently with siduron.

The Effect of Modeling Methods on Mirror Neurons Activity and a Motor Skill Acquisition and Retention

Purpose: Mirror neurons have been suggested as a potential neural mechanism of observational learning. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of self-modeling, skilled model, and learning model on mu rhythm suppression and golf putting acquisition and retention. Method: The study was conducted on 45 male volunteer students (age, 19.4 ± 0.37 years) in three experimental groups: self-modeling, skilled, and learning models with six sessions of physical and observational training in three periods of pre-test, acquisition, and retention. In the pre-test, after the initial familiarity with the skill, participants performed 10 golf putting actions while scores were recorded. Then, electrical brain waves in C3, C4 and Cz regions were recorded during the observation 10 golf putting actions by their group-related models. The acquisition period consisted of golf putting training during six sessions, each of which included six blocks of 10 trials. Before each training block, participants observed 10 times in the forms of video of golf putting related to their group. Acquisition and delayed retention tests were also performed by recording scores of 10 golf putting actions, as well as recording electrical brain waves while observing the skill performed by the related model. Results: Mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the mu rhythm suppression the pre-test was more in the self-modeling group in contrast to skilled model and learning model groups, but this suppression in all three groups in the acquisition and retention tests was not significantly different. In putting task variables, all three groups that did not a significant difference in the pretest period made considerable progress in learning the desired skill from the pre-test to the acquisition test, and this progress was somewhat stable until the retention test. Also, both in the acquisition and the retention periods, the self-modeling group displayed better performance than the other two groups; however, there was no significant difference between these groups. Conclusion: These findings suggest that the model-observer similarity is an important factor in modeling interventions and can affect the rate of mu rhythm suppression.

Expecting to teach a novel golf putting task did not enhance retention performance: A replication attempt of Daou and colleagues (2016;2016)

While research has identified several practice variables that purportedly enhance motor learning, recent replication failures highlight the importance of conducting high-powered, pre-registered replications. The “expecting to teach” phenomenon was first reported in the motor learning literature by Daou and colleagues and suggested learners benefit from practicing with the understanding they will later need to teach the skill. The extant data have been mixed but generally positive. While expecting to teach has been shown to enhance motor learning of a golf putt, the mechanisms linked with this benefit are yet to be determined. As such, this study sought to replicate the expecting to teach effect and to extend those findings by exploring participants’ thought processes. Participants (N = 76) were randomly assigned to one of two groups in which they were told that they were learning a golf putt in order to 1) be tested on the skill or 2) to teach the skill to another individual. On Day 1, participants completed pre-test putts, a pre-acquisition intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI), a 2-minute study of an instructional booklet, 50 practice putts and a post-acquisition IMI. During practice, participants were also afforded opportunities to continue studying the booklet and to complete additional putts. Participants returned 24-hours later to complete a retention, a transfer (50 cm longer golf-putt), and a free recall test, as well as a post-study survey to reveal thoughts they engaged in after practice but before (or during) the retention test. Similar to Daou et al., no significant differences were found with study time, number of acquisition putts, or motivation. However, golf-putting performance during retention resulted in no differences for radial error, g = −.13 (95%CI [−.55, .29]), between the two groups and no differences were shown for the recall test. The present study fails to replicate the benefits reported in the original experiments.

Effects of aiming lines and visual function on the golf putting alignment

Background: In golf, a player hits a ball with a club, aiming to transfer the ball successively into a series of hole cups in a course consisting of 18 (or fewer) holes. This study aimed to compare the impact of visual function and the presence and number of aiming lines on golf putting alignment between beginner and expert golfers. Methods: In this prospective comparative study, 43 participants with a mean ± standard deviation (SD) of corrected distance binocular visual acuity of –0.07 ± 0.74 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, who knew their average golf scores, were divided into beginner and expert golfers. Six visual function tests were conducted to assess heterotropia, dominant eye, verification of current spectacles, static visual acuity, stereopsis, and fixation disparity. At the putting distances of 1.5 m and 3 m, alignment errors were measured five times each, using golf balls with 1 and 3 aiming line(s) and putters with 1 and 3 aiming line(s). Results: The mean ± SD of age was 48.33 ± 10.07 years for study participants overall. The accuracy of ball alignment was not affected by the career or number of aiming lines, but the putter alignment was higher for the 3-lines putter than for the 1-line putter (P < 0.05). When the number and shape of the aiming line were the same for both the ball and putter, the aiming accuracy was found to be higher. In both stereopsis and fixation disparity, the combination of putting distance and a 3-lines ball showed negative values; all other combinations showed positive values, but no statistically significant correlation was detected (all P > 0.05). Conclusions: The accuracy of golf ball alignment did not depend on the number of aiming lines and the golfer’s career. However, the predicted putting success rate and subjective satisfaction were increased when three-line golf balls and putters were used, as compared to when one-line golf balls and putters were used. How to cite this article: Kim YJ, Jin YG, Koo BY, Jang JU, Mah KC. Effects of aiming lines and visual function on the golf putting alignment. Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Optom.2021 Spring; 2(1): 41-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51329/mehdioptometry124