A quick cookie question 🍪
By the way, can we use a tracker to see where you came from and measure our ads? Are you okay with that? Learn more
Tracking the ball: pursuit, predictive saccades, the role of the head and VOR in the batter, and what 57 studies say about the cue.
The RNP training space, free for life
Get access to RNP training, no strings attached.
In brief. Facing a fast ball, the expert batter follows it with the eyes early in flight, then often launches a predictive saccade toward the bounce or the contact point; the head carries a large share of the tracking. In the lab, tracking the ball helps predict its path, but no controlled trial shows that training the eyes alone improves hitting in games. 57 studies, updated November 3, 2026.
Hello to you, the movement professional,
Two of the best cricket batters in the world batted for David Mann's team, an eye tracker on their head, facing a machine that projected the ball through the life-size image of a bowler. Their heads turned with the ball and kept it in a constant direction: motionless eyes would have been enough to follow it. Their eyes nonetheless jumped ahead, most often twice, to the bounce point and then to the contact point, so as to be on the ball at the moment of hitting it (Mann et al., 2013).
"Keep your eye on the ball" remains the queen cue of hitting sports. It poorly describes what the best actually do, and yet the research partly proves it right. The skeptical coach will see a lab matter in this, and he is right on one point: among the controlled trials gathered here, no eyes-only exercise program improved hitting in games. We went back over 57 studies, from cricket to squash, null results included.
Smooth pursuit keeps a moving target on the fovea, the central, sharp zone of the retina; it relies on the cortical motion areas and on the cerebellum, and takes a moment to get started. Saccades shift the gaze in a jump; when the jump aims at a place the ball hasn't reached yet, the saccade is called predictive. The frontal eye field takes part in commanding both. The vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) turns the eyes opposite to the head to stabilize the image: if the head follows the ball, it has to be partly braked. In the studies, gaze adds up the position of the eyes in the head and that of the head: you can keep it on the ball while moving mostly the head.
Mann and colleagues recall a long-dominant idea, which they attribute notably to Bahill and LaRitz (American Scientist, 1984, absent from PubMed, not reread here): the ball would be too fast to be followed, and the batter would not be looking at it at the moment of hitting it (Mann et al., 2013). In 1988, Ripoll and Fleurance put the question in a title: what does it mean to keep one's eye on the ball (Ripoll and Fleurance, 1988)?
Study | Sport, population (n) | What was done | Measure | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cricket, batters of different levels, sample size not given in the abstract | Facing a fast bowler | Eye movements | Fixation of the release, predictive saccade to the bounce, pursuit for 100 to 200 ms after the bounce; first saccade earlier in good batters | |
Cricket, 13 sub-elite batters | 36 machine balls between 17 and 25 m/s | Foveal gaze | Strategies specific to each batter: pursuit up to the bounce possible, or saccades along the trajectory | |
Cricket, 2 of the best batters in the world | Batting | Eyes and head | Head coupled to the ball; two predictive saccades (bounce, then contact); gaze on the ball at the hit | |
Cricket, 4 groups (elite or club, under 19 or adults), sample size not given in the abstract | Batting in the field, straight or swinging trajectories | Eyes and head | Some markers of expertise confirmed, others contested; uncertainty about the swing changes the gaze more than the swing itself | |
Baseball, 6 professional hitters | Facing former professional pitchers, pitch type unknown | Worn eye tracker, head, bat | First predictive saccades 80 to 220 ms before impact; later in the three best, with a trend toward a smaller gaze-ball gap | |
Baseball, 9 college players | Machine at 80, 100, 120 and 140 km/h | Eyes, head, hip | At 120 and 140 km/h, the head alone tracks early on; predictive saccade timed to the hip rotation and to the contact | |
Baseball, 6 college players | Machine balls at 31.9 and 40.3 m/s | Head (high-speed video), eyes (electro-oculography) | Head rotation accelerates late in flight, eye rotation stays stable | |
Baseball, 15 college players analyzed | Pitches watched without batting | Eyes, head, gaze error | Tracking mostly by the head, eyes barely moving until the end, VOR partly braked; no anticipatory saccade | |
Baseball, 2 former college players | Letting the ball pass or hitting | Horizontal rotations | Head more mobile than the eyes; gaze near the ball until about 150 ms before arrival when letting it pass, 50 to 60 ms when hitting | |
Baseball, 2 former college players | Batting against a machine | Vertical rotations | Eyes in the opposite direction to the head, gaze below the ball, ball held in a constant direction | |
Baseball, 8 players, 9 novices | Filmed batting | Head displacement | Earlier peak and less variable head in the players | |
Baseball and softball, 15 hitters | Half swing (coupled task) or height judgment (uncoupled) | Gaze | Rapid gaze shifts on 39.7% of pitches in the coupled task, 53.0% in the uncoupled |
In cricket, the batter sees the ball from a fast bowler for a little over half a second: he fixates the release, jumps to the bounce point, then pursues the ball for 100 to 200 ms, and a fast first saccade distinguishes good batters (Land and McLeod, 2000). Facing slow to medium balls, some pursue up to the bounce (Croft et al., 2010).
In baseball, with no bounce, the predictive saccade heads for the contact zone; the three best of the six professionals launch it later (Kishita et al., 2020a). It is timed to the rotation of the hip, not to the position of the ball (Kishita et al., 2020b): gaze is part of the swing. It also changes depending on whether the player hits or watches the ball go by (Fogt and Persson, 2017; Clutter and Fogt, 2026), which is what perception-action coupling describes.
In the batter, the head often does the largest share of the tracking. In players who watch without hitting, it accompanies the ball while the eyes move little and the VOR is partly braked (Fogt and Zimmerman, 2014). On a fast ball, its rotation accelerates late in flight while that of the eyes stays stable; Higuchi and colleagues conclude that classic exercises with saccades or wide pursuits do not reflect hitting (Higuchi et al., 2018). The table tennis player's gaze has its own article.
The head does more than orient. Deprived of eye movements by goggles, or of head movements by a neck brace, baseball players judge almost as accurately where a high ball will land, but respond later with the goggles and earlier with the neck brace: for the authors, head stability, one part of postural control, helps in judging (Bongers and Michaels, 2008). Fielders run to intercept luminous balls in the dark: the retina alone is therefore not enough, and the authors point to the vestibular system and proprioception (Oudejans et al., 1999). In 28 elite hockey players and 30 non-athletes, a head repositioning test explains 26 to 54% of the differences in eye speed at the start of a pursuit (Majcen Rosker et al., 2021).
Study | Population (n) | Task | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
Observers, sample size not given in the abstract | Predict whether a ball reaches a goal, by following it or fixating | Better prediction in pursuit than in fixation | |
Subjects, sample size not given in the abstract | Intercept a target by following it or by fixating the interception point | Systematic errors in fixation, absent in pursuit | |
42 college baseball players | Intercept with a finger a "fly ball" of which only 100 to 300 ms of flight are shown | More accurate pursuit, more accurate interception; older players intercept later | |
9 subjects | Catch with one hand a ball thrown by a machine | Only the pursuit duration predicts success, trial by trial; each person's average strategy does not predict their success | |
Three experiments, sample size not given in the abstract | Cricket-type task | Pursuit provides enough information; monitoring in the periphery adds nothing; pursuit can do better than the predictive saccade | |
Subjects, sample size not given in the abstract | Hit a target on a curved path, hitting zone known or not | Known zone: gaze jumps there as soon as possible; unknown zone: pursuit | |
17 expert footballers | Ball interception with the foot before and after 45 min of intense cycling | Link between pursuit accuracy and interception before the effort, gone afterward; interception maintained | |
15 college baseball players | Interception on a touchscreen, start or end of the trajectory masked | Without the start of the trajectory, spatial accuracy drops; timing holds | |
10 college baseball players | Vision cut 150 ms after release or 150 ms before arrival | Seeing longer reduces contact dispersion along only one axis of the bat; end of the trajectory of little use, visuomotor delay obliging | |
9 experienced softball players | First, second or last third of the flight masked | Two thirds visible, whichever they are, are plenty | |
20 subjects | Balls at 85 to 124 km/h, vision cut at 100 or 250 ms | Seeing longer improves height estimation, without making it exact at slow speeds |
The cue has support in the lab: following the target improves the prediction of its path and the accuracy of interception (Spering et al., 2011; de la Malla et al., 2017; Fooken et al., 2016), perhaps because the efference copy, the command for the eye movement, adds information to that of the retina. For Toole and Fogt, baseball hitters do keep their eyes on the ball at the start of the pitch (Toole and Fogt, 2021).
Up to contact, however, the cue describes the expert poorly. The end of the flight is of little use, visuomotor delay obliging, and the start counts for more (Higuchi et al., 2016; Jang, 2026), even if softball players make do with any two thirds of the flight (De Lucia and Cochran, 1985). When the interception point is known, the gaze jumps there (de la Malla et al., 2019), which a review ties to visual certainty and to the predictability of the path (Fooken et al., 2021). None of these studies tests the cue itself.
Acuity rarely limits performance: with lenses that blur vision, ten cricket batters lose interception only at +3.00 diopters against a machine, from +2.00 against fast bowlers (Mann et al., 2010a), and slight visual blur does not hinder their anticipation when they bat (Mann et al., 2010b).
In squash, predictive gaze movements are everywhere and precise, a sign of internal models of flight learned through experience (Hayhoe et al., 2012). In virtual reality, pre-bounce saccades adjust when the elasticity of the ball changes (Diaz et al., 2013); novices aim a few degrees above the bounce, then the head corrects horizontally, the eyes vertically (Mann et al., 2019). Watching tennis videos, experience of the game makes these saccades more accurate (Taya et al., 2013). This is predictive motor control applied to the eyes, with a function still debated: the saccade would not serve to monitor the ball in the periphery (Vater and Mann, 2023).
Study | Population (n) | Measure | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
Baseball players and non-athletes, sample size not given in the abstract | Dynamic visual acuity, eyes free or in fixation | Advantage for players with eyes free only | |
Baseball players and non-players, sample size not given in the abstract | Eye movements and perception on the retina | Faster eyes, shorter latencies; identical perception | |
23 college baseball players | Dynamic acuity and pursuit kinematics | Low position error, smooth pursuit and few backward saccades go with better acuity | |
Qualified cricket players and non-players, sample size not given in the abstract | Dynamic acuity on a continuously moving target | Better in players, less sensitive to speed | |
102 Japanese professionals | Static, kinetic and dynamic acuities | No difference by level reached | |
Professional baseball players and age-matched controls, sample size not given in the abstract | Dynamic acuity during head impulses, video head impulse test | Better acuity; VOR gain differing more between slow and fast speeds | |
Qualified and novice ball players | Saccade latency, predictable or unpredictable targets | Shorter latency and more express saccades on a predictable target | |
16 fencers, 19 tennis players, 12 gymnasts, 9 swimmers, 18 sedentary people | Saccades, pursuit | Shorter latency in athletes; higher pursuit gain in tennis players only | |
44 international cricket players, 21 rugby league players, 50 controls | Visual reaction time, saccades, blinks | Cricket players faster; gaze stability does not explain the gap | |
585 professionals | Test combining size, contrast and presentation time | Correlated with plate discipline; effect sizes of 0.278 to 0.387 between the extreme 20%; two authors have an interest in a patent on the test | |
252 professionals | 8 psychomotor tasks | Predicts on-base presence, walks and strikeouts; nothing on hitting power | |
59 Twenty20 professionals | Eye-tracking battery | Several measures predict runs scored and batting rate; one author is a cofounder of the company that supplies the battery | |
45 players aged 15 to 19, one club | 21 visual variables, 10 batting indicators | 17 associations out of 210 at the uncorrected threshold, 2 with moderate Bayesian evidence | |
22 cross-sectional studies | Scoping review | Oculomotor skills among the characteristics linked to hitting, with size and strength |
The better dynamic visual acuity of baseball players disappears when they are forced to fixate: it comes from how they track, not from a better reading of the image on the retina (Uchida et al., 2012). In professionals, visual tests are tied to plate selectivity (Laby et al., 2019; Burris et al., 2018), not to the level reached in a Japanese club (Hoshina et al., 2013), and very little in young players (Romero Clavijo et al., 2026). In cricket, players' basic visual functions resemble, with a few exceptions, those of everyone else, whereas eye and head movements distinguish elite batters from sub-elite ones (Fogt and Fogt, 2023). These studies are cross-sectional: does the game train these abilities, or does it retain those who had them?
Study | Sport | Population (n) | Published protocol | Measure | Result | Transfer to the field | Level of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseball | 80 high school students, 20 per group, randomized | Adaptive batting in a virtual environment projected on a screen (no headset), extra virtual batting, extra real batting, or nothing extra; 2 sessions of 45 min per week, 6 weeks | Virtual batting, on-field batting test, pitch recognition, league statistics, level reached at 5 years | Adaptive group ahead on most measures; better league statistics | Measured and positive | Moderate | |
Baseball | 37 randomized college players | 8 virtual reality batting sessions with slow-motion feedback, over 4 weeks, on top of usual practice | Bat-ball contact precision | More precise contact than in controls | Measured in training, positive; games not measured | Moderate to low | |
Softball | 17 players, 9 versus 8 | Perceptual virtual reality: discriminating ball speeds | Perceptual accuracy, swing initiation in virtual reality | Both improve | Not measured | Low | |
Baseball | 24 randomized, analyses on 12 to 20 | Dynamic vision (strobe, coincidence-anticipation, eye quickness), 8.5 h on average, versus placebo exercises | Visuomotor battery, instrumented batting, college game statistics | Nothing on the battery or in games; angle and distance of hit improved (d = 0.74 and 0.70) | Measured: null in games, positive in training | Low (pilot) | |
Baseball, softball | 32, 16 versus 16 | Digital program, 3 sessions of 20 min per week for 3 weeks, versus placebo, double-blind | Acuity, depth perception, contrasts, dynamic acuity, at 1 month | No significant difference, despite effect sizes of at least 0.5 on four measures; 15 of 16 placebo participants thought they had trained | Not measured | Moderate | |
Athletes, sport not specified | 67 randomized, 51 analyzed | Home saccade training, 4 weeks, with or without a device, versus none | Visual exam, saccade recording | No consistent difference between the two trained groups; study commissioned by the device manufacturer | Not measured | Low | |
Baseball | One college team, sample size not given in the abstract | Vision exercises 6 weeks before the season, then maintenance during the season | Team statistics, season versus previous season | Batting average from 0.251 to 0.285; power up while that of the rest of the conference went down | Measured, positive, no contemporary control group | Low (caveat) | |
Baseball | Sample of Gray 2017 | Reanalysis of ground forces | Swing coordination | Increased functional variability, especially in the adaptive group | Linked to league statistics | Moderate (secondary analysis) |
Eye-centered programs transfer little. A digital program does no better than a double-blind placebo (Shekar et al., 2021), home saccades do not clearly separate the trained groups (Ganebnaya et al., 2025), and a preregistered pilot trial finds nothing in games, only an improvement in hitting in training (Liu et al., 2020, absent from PubMed, cited by its DOI). The gain of a college team rests on a comparison with the previous season (Clark et al., 2012), and a short letter without abstract on perceptual learning in baseball is cited without figures (Deveau et al., 2014).
The only league transfer measured against controls comes from adaptive batting training, in a virtual environment projected on a screen, where perception stays tied to the swing (Gray, 2017; Gray, 2020). Two recent virtual reality trials improve without game measurement: one adds batting with slow-motion feedback (Hayashi et al., 2026), the other trains only the perception of speed (Nasu et al., 2024). The article on virtual reality and decision-making details them.
Study A | Relationship | Study B |
|---|---|---|
Land and McLeod 2000 | nuanced by | Croft 2010: at slow to medium speed, pursuit up to the bounce remains possible |
Mann 2013 | extends | Land and McLeod 2000: two predictive saccades in the elite, head coupled to the ball |
Sarpeshkar 2017, Mann 2010a and 2010b, Mann 2019, Vater and Mann 2023 | same team as | Mann 2013 |
Fogt and Zimmerman 2014 | contrasts with | Kishita 2020a: no anticipatory saccade in players who watch without hitting |
Fogt and Persson 2017, Clutter and Fogt 2026 | explain | this contrast: gaze changes depending on whether the player hits or not |
Fogt 2014, 2017, 2020, Clutter 2026, Benson 2025, Toole 2021, Fogt and Fogt 2023 | same team | replications that are not very independent |
Kishita 2020a | same team as | Kishita 2020b and Nasu 2024 (Kashino's laboratory) |
Higuchi 2016 | same team, same speeds as | Higuchi 2018; Higuchi coauthor of Uchida 2013 |
Spering 2011, de la Malla 2017, Fooken 2016 | converge | following the target improves prediction and accuracy |
Cesqui 2015 | nuances | Fooken 2016: a subject's average strategy does not predict their success |
De Lucia and Cochran 1985 | nuances | Higuchi 2016 and Jang 2026: any two thirds of the flight are enough for softball |
Vater and Mann 2023 | nuances | Land and McLeod 2000 and Mann 2013 on the function of the predictive saccade |
Palidis 2017 | same laboratory (Spering) as | Fooken 2016 and 2021 |
Uchida 2012 | confirmed by, same team, | Uchida 2013 |
Burris 2018 | same group as | Liu 2020 |
Gray 2020 | reanalyzes | Gray 2017 (same sample) |
Shekar 2021, Liu 2020, Ganebnaya 2025 | contrast with | Clark 2012: no clear effect as soon as a placebo or a contemporary control exists |
The description of expert gaze has been converging for a quarter of a century, from cricket to baseball. It nonetheless rests on small samples, sometimes two players, and on a few laboratories that replicate one another.
Established: the expert batter follows the ball early in flight, gets help from the head by braking the VOR, then launches predictive saccades toward the bounce or the contact; in the lab, following a target improves the prediction of its path. Debated: the function of the predictive saccade, the value of following up to contact, the origin of players' oculomotor abilities, trained by the game or selected by it. Extrapolation: that training the eyes outside the movement improves hitting in games. Nobody can promise you that saccade work will add a hit for your athlete.
One experiment would settle it: a randomized trial in experienced batters, comparing a pursuit and saccade program to an equal volume of real batting, judged on game statistics with a two-month retention. If it finds no difference, the idea that training the eyes alone improves hitting falls.
If your athlete reports double vision, blur that persists, headaches with exertion or dizziness, visual training waits. They see an ophthalmologist first, then an orthoptist in France, or an optometrist in Switzerland or the United States. LabO RNP is neither medical nor paramedical, and comes as a complement to a care pathway, never in its place. LabO RNP works with optometrists; the curriculum was built with them.
The eyes are an entry point. What LabO RNP teaches are the sensory aspects of movement and the entire sensorimotor loop. The batter gives a tight example: his saccade is timed to the hip, his head follows the ball, his neck informs his eyes. The binocular vision pyramid ranks the visual skills, and the map of evidence in sports vision locates each family of training.
On a fast ball, experts follow it early in flight, then often launch a predictive saccade toward the bounce or the contact, 80 to 220 ms before impact in professional baseball players (Kishita et al., 2020a). In two hitters, however, the gaze stays near the ball until 50 to 60 ms before its arrival (Fogt and Persson, 2017). The cue itself has not been tested.
The delay between the eye and the movement makes the end of the flight of little use (Higuchi et al., 2016). The predictive saccade places the gaze where the ball will arrive, thanks to models learned through experience (Hayhoe et al., 2012). Its exact function remains debated (Vater and Mann, 2023).
Rarely. In hitters, the head carries most of the tracking and the vestibulo-ocular reflex is partly braked (Fogt and Zimmerman, 2014). Late in flight, head rotation accelerates while eye rotation stays stable (Higuchi et al., 2018).
No controlled trial gathered here shows it in games. A digital program does no better than a placebo (Shekar et al., 2021) and a pilot trial finds nothing in games (Liu et al., 2020). The only league transfer measured against controls comes from adaptive batting training in a virtual environment projected on a screen (Gray, 2017).
Yes, as soon as they report double vision, persistent blur, headaches with exertion or dizziness: ophthalmologist first, then orthoptist or optometrist depending on the country. LabO RNP is neither medical nor paramedical, and comes as a complement to a care pathway, never in its place.
In the expert batter, the head carries the ball and the eye goes to wait for it where the bat will meet it.
👉 I want to understand what the eye prepares before the movement starts.
By the LabO RNP team
Method. 57 studies analyzed on November 3, 2026: 51 from the vision silo inventory (saccades, pursuit, batting, baseball, cricket, interception), 6 from a targeted PubMed search on pursuit and interception. Two references without abstract are cited by title alone (Ripoll and Fleurance 1988, Deveau 2014). Excluded: concussion, officiating; Bahill and LaRitz 1984, not reread, is mentioned without serving as evidence. PMIDs verified on PubMed; the non-indexed study is cited by its DOI, verified on Crossref.
Bahill AT, LaRitz T (1984). Why can't batters keep their eyes on the ball? American Scientist, 72, 249-253. Not indexed in PubMed; not reread, cited from Mann et al. (2013).
Barrett BT, Cruickshank AG, Flavell JC, Bennett SJ, Buckley JG, Harris JM, Scally AJ (2020). Faster visual reaction times in elite athletes are not linked to better gaze stability. Sci Rep, 10(1), 13216. PMID 32764576. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-69975-z
Benson E, Toole AJ, Fogt N (2025). Ball-Flight Viewing Duration and Estimates of Passing Height in Baseball. Vision (Basel), 9(1). PMID 39982325. doi:10.3390/vision9010008
Bongers RM, Michaels CF (2008). The role of eye and head movements in detecting information about fly balls. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 34(6), 1515-23. PMID 19045990. doi:10.1037/a0011974
Burris K, Vittetoe K, Ramger B, Suresh S, Tokdar ST, Reiter JP, Appelbaum LG (2018). Sensorimotor abilities predict on-field performance in professional baseball. Sci Rep, 8(1), 116. PMID 29311675. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-18565-7
Cesqui B, Mezzetti M, Lacquaniti F, d'Avella A (2015). Gaze behavior in one-handed catching and its relation with interceptive performance: what the eyes can't tell. PLoS One, 10(3), e0119445. PMID 25793989. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119445
Ceyte H, Lion A, Caudron S, Perrin P, Gauchard GC (2017). Visuo-oculomotor skills related to the visual demands of sporting environments. Exp Brain Res, 235(1), 269-277. PMID 27704155. doi:10.1007/s00221-016-4793-3
Clark JF, Ellis JK, Bench J, Khoury J, Graman P (2012). High-performance vision training improves batting statistics for University of Cincinnati baseball players. PLoS One, 7(1), e29109. PMID 22276103. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029109
Clutter M, Fogt N (2026). Gaze Tracking of Pitched Balls in Coupled and Uncoupled Tasks. Vision (Basel), 10(3). PMID 42646821. doi:10.3390/vision10030051
Croft JL, Button C, Dicks M (2010). Visual strategies of sub-elite cricket batsmen in response to different ball velocities. Hum Mov Sci, 29(5), 751-63. PMID 20031242. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2009.10.004
de la Malla C, Smeets JBJ, Brenner E (2017). Potential Systematic Interception Errors are Avoided When Tracking the Target with One's Eyes. Sci Rep, 7(1), 10793. PMID 28883471. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-11200-5
de la Malla C, Rushton SK, Clark K, Smeets JBJ, Brenner E (2019). The predictability of a target's motion influences gaze, head, and hand movements when trying to intercept it. J Neurophysiol, 121(6), 2416-2427. PMID 31042444. doi:10.1152/jn.00917.2017
De Lucia PR, Cochran EL (1985). Perceptual information for batting can be extracted throughout a ball's trajectory. Percept Mot Skills, 61(1), 143-50. PMID 4047874. doi:10.2466/pms.1985.61.1.143
Deveau J, Ozer DJ, Seitz AR (2014). Improved vision and on-field performance in baseball through perceptual learning. Curr Biol, 24(4), R146-7. PMID 24556432. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.01.004 (cited by title, no abstract)
Diaz G, Cooper J, Rothkopf C, Hayhoe M (2013). Saccades to future ball location reveal memory-based prediction in a virtual-reality interception task. J Vis, 13(1), 20. PMID 23325347. doi:10.1167/13.1.20
Filippini T, Kittelson A, Wagner A, Moody V, Schubert M, Loyd B (2025). Professional baseball players demonstrate superior dynamic visual acuity and differences in vestibulo-ocular reflex performance, compared to similarly aged healthy controls. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil, 18(1), 15. PMID 41345978. doi:10.1186/s13102-025-01405-x
Fogt JS, Fogt N (2023). Studies of Vision in Cricket-A Narrative Review. Vision (Basel), 7(3). PMID 37756131. doi:10.3390/vision7030057
Fogt N, Persson TW (2017). A Pilot Study of Horizontal Head and Eye Rotations in Baseball Batting. Optom Vis Sci, 94(8), 789-796. PMID 28767546. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001100
Fogt N, Persson TW (2020). Vertical head and eye movements in baseball batting. Optom Vis Perform, 8(3), 129-134. PMID 33283000.
Fogt NF, Zimmerman AB (2014). A method to monitor eye and head tracking movements in college baseball players. Optom Vis Sci, 91(2), 200-11. PMID 24394952. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000000148
Fooken J, Yeo SH, Pai DK, Spering M (2016). Eye movement accuracy determines natural interception strategies. J Vis, 16(14), 1. PMID 27802509. doi:10.1167/16.14.1
Fooken J, Kreyenmeier P, Spering M (2021). The role of eye movements in manual interception: A mini-review. Vision Res, 183, 81-90. PMID 33743442. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2021.02.007
Ganebnaya A, Svede A, Kucika A, Berkova J, Purmale A, Puhova L, Misri M, Semjonova S, Gailitis DD, Kovalovs A (2025). Application of a New Device for Saccadic Training in Athletes. Life (Basel), 15(6). PMID 40566599. doi:10.3390/life15060947
Gray R (2017). Transfer of Training from Virtual to Real Baseball Batting. Front Psychol, 8, 2183. PMID 29326627. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02183
Gray R (2020). Changes in Movement Coordination Associated With Skill Acquisition in Baseball Batting: Freezing/Freeing Degrees of Freedom and Functional Variability. Front Psychol, 11, 1295. PMID 32670156. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01295
Hausendorf J, Gonzalez C, Lewis JL, Rakobowchuk M (2026). The effects of fatigue on the relation between ocular pursuit and interceptive performance in soccer experts. J Sports Sci, 44(12), 1527-1544. PMID 42050793. doi:10.1080/02640414.2026.2653298
Hayashi H, Hayashi T, Ikudome S, Fukuhara K, Morishita Y, Takamido R, Cañal-Bruland R, Nakamoto H (2026). Supplementary VR batting training with slow-replay augmented feedback improves bat-ball contact precision. J Sports Sci, 1-20 (online ahead of print). PMID 42817227. doi:10.1080/02640414.2026.2741470
Hayhoe MM, McKinney T, Chajka K, Pelz JB (2012). Predictive eye movements in natural vision. Exp Brain Res, 217(1), 125-36. PMID 22183755. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2979-2
Higuchi T, Nagami T, Nakata H, Watanabe M, Isaka T, Kanosue K (2016). Contribution of Visual Information about Ball Trajectory to Baseball Hitting Accuracy. PLoS One, 11(2), e0148498. PMID 26848742. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148498
Higuchi T, Nagami T, Nakata H, Kanosue K (2018). Head-eye movement of collegiate baseball batters during fastball hitting. PLoS One, 13(7), e0200443. PMID 30016367. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200443
Hoshina K, Tagami Y, Mimura O, Edagawa H, Matsubara M, Nakayama T (2013). A study of static, kinetic, and dynamic visual acuity in 102 Japanese professional baseball players. Clin Ophthalmol, 7, 627-32. PMID 23569356. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S41047
Jang D (2026). Predictive and prospective control strategies of elite batters during interception tasks: coupling of perception and action. Front Psychol, 17, 1775889. PMID 41867977. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1775889
Kelly R, Roberts JW (2021). Investigation into the dynamic visual acuity of skilled cricketers using a continuous motion task. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 61(5), 753-759. PMID 33146492. doi:10.23736/S0022-4707.20.11321-5
Kishita Y, Ueda H, Kashino M (2020a). Eye and Head Movements of Elite Baseball Players in Real Batting. Front Sports Act Living, 2, 3. PMID 33344998. doi:10.3389/fspor.2020.00003
Kishita Y, Ueda H, Kashino M (2020b). Temporally Coupled Coordination of Eye and Body Movements in Baseball Batting for a Wide Range of Ball Speeds. Front Sports Act Living, 2, 64. PMID 33345055. doi:10.3389/fspor.2020.00064
Laby DM, Kirschen DG, Govindarajulu U, DeLand P (2019). The Effect of Visual Function on the Batting Performance of Professional Baseball Players. Sci Rep, 9(1), 16847. PMID 31728011. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-52546-2
Land MF, McLeod P (2000). From eye movements to actions: how batsmen hit the ball. Nat Neurosci, 3(12), 1340-5. PMID 11100157. doi:10.1038/81887
Liu S, Ferris LM, Hilbig S, Asamoa E, LaRue JL, Lyon D, Connolly K, Port N, Appelbaum LG (2020). Dynamic vision training transfers positively to batting practice performance among collegiate baseball batters. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 51, 101759. Not indexed in PubMed. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101759
Majcen Rosker Z, Kristjansson E, Vodicar M, Rosker J (2021). Postural balance and oculomotor control are influenced by neck kinaesthetic functions in elite ice hockey players. Gait Posture, 85, 145-150. PMID 33578306. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.01.024
Mann DL, Abernethy B, Farrow D (2010a). The resilience of natural interceptive actions to refractive blur. Hum Mov Sci, 29(3), 386-400. PMID 20430464. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2010.02.007
Mann DL, Abernethy B, Farrow D (2010b). Visual information underpinning skilled anticipation: The effect of blur on a coupled and uncoupled in situ anticipatory response. Atten Percept Psychophys, 72(5), 1317-26. PMID 20601713. doi:10.3758/APP.72.5.1317
Mann DL, Spratford W, Abernethy B (2013). The head tracks and gaze predicts: how the world's best batters hit a ball. PLoS One, 8(3), e58289. PMID 23516460. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058289
Mann DL, Nakamoto H, Logt N, Sikkink L, Brenner E (2019). Predictive eye movements when hitting a bouncing ball. J Vis, 19(14), 28. PMID 31891654. doi:10.1167/19.14.28
Murray NP, Lawton J, Rider P, Harris N, Hunfalvay M (2021). Oculomotor Behavior Predict Professional Cricket Batting and Bowling Performance. Front Hum Neurosci, 15, 768585. PMID 35002657. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.768585
Nakata H, Miura A, Yoshie M, Kudo K (2012). Differences in the head movement during baseball batting between skilled players and novices. J Strength Cond Res, 26(10), 2632-40. PMID 22130405. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182429c38
Nasu D, Baba T, Imamura T, Yamaguchi M, Kitanishi Y, Kashino M (2024). Virtual reality perceptual training can improve the temporal discrimination ability of swinging during softball batting. Front Sports Act Living, 6, 1332149. PMID 38450282. doi:10.3389/fspor.2024.1332149
Oudejans RR, Michaels CF, Bakker FC, Davids K (1999). Shedding some light on catching in the dark: perceptual mechanisms for catching fly balls. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 25(2), 531-42. PMID 10205865. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.25.2.531
Palidis DJ, Wyder-Hodge PA, Fooken J, Spering M (2017). Distinct eye movement patterns enhance dynamic visual acuity. PLoS One, 12(2), e0172061. PMID 28187157. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172061
Ripoll H, Fleurance P (1988). What does keeping one's eye on the ball mean? Ergonomics, 31(11), 1647-54. PMID 3229411. doi:10.1080/00140138808966814 (cited by title, no abstract)
Romero Clavijo FA, Trempe M, Bachir V, Romeas T (2026). Association Between Performance on Visual Tests and Batting Performance Indicators in Highly Trained Baseball Players. Percept Mot Skills, 133(5), 1567-1590. PMID 41308178. doi:10.1177/00315125251395108
Sarpeshkar V, Abernethy B, Mann DL (2017). Visual strategies underpinning the development of visual-motor expertise when hitting a ball. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 43(10), 1744-1772. PMID 28967781. doi:10.1037/xhp0000465
Shekar SU, Erickson GB, Horn F, Hayes JR, Cooper S (2021). Efficacy of a Digital Sports Vision Training Program for Improving Visual Abilities in Collegiate Baseball and Softball Athletes. Optom Vis Sci, 98(7), 815-825. PMID 34285177. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001740
Spering M, Schütz AC, Braun DI, Gegenfurtner KR (2011). Keep your eyes on the ball: smooth pursuit eye movements enhance prediction of visual motion. J Neurophysiol, 105(4), 1756-67. PMID 21289135. doi:10.1152/jn.00344.2010
Taya S, Windridge D, Osman M (2013). Trained eyes: experience promotes adaptive gaze control in dynamic and uncertain visual environments. PLoS One, 8(8), e71371. PMID 23951147. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071371
Toole AJ, Fogt N (2021). Review: Head and Eye Movements and Gaze Tracking in Baseball Batting. Optom Vis Sci, 98(7), 750-758. PMID 34328453. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001721
Tremblay M, Couëpel B, Abboud J, Descarreaux M (2025). What are the Individual Characteristics or Skills Associated with Baseball Batting Performance? A Scoping Review. Sports Med Open, 11(1), 150. PMID 41310274. doi:10.1186/s40798-025-00947-1
Uchida Y, Kudoh D, Murakami A, Honda M, Kitazawa S (2012). Origins of superior dynamic visual acuity in baseball players: superior eye movements or superior image processing. PLoS One, 7(2), e31530. PMID 22384033. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031530
Uchida Y, Kudoh D, Higuchi T, Honda M, Kanosue K (2013). Dynamic visual acuity in baseball players is due to superior tracking abilities. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 45(2), 319-25. PMID 22935736. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31826fec97
Vater C, Mann DL (2023). Are predictive saccades linked to the processing of peripheral information? Psychol Res, 87(5), 1501-1519. PMID 36167931. doi:10.1007/s00426-022-01743-2
Zhang J, Watanabe K (2005). Differences in saccadic latency and express saccades between skilled and novice ball players in tracking predictable and unpredictable targets at two visual angles. Percept Mot Skills, 100(3 Pt 2), 1127-36. PMID 16158699. doi:10.2466/pms.100.3c.1127-1136
30 studies in gymnastics, trampoline, dance and skating: where the rotation expert looks, what the vestibulo-ocular reflex does, how good spotting is.
Read the article Sensory Sensors - VisionDynamic visual acuity in athletes, 43 studies: two tests under one name, only one well validated, an athlete advantage with no proven link to play.
Read the article Sensory Sensors - VisionAthletes' peripheral vision, 44 studies: experts use it better in action; reactive lights improve tests, the match is not measured.
Read the articleThe RNP system is meant to be read, targeted and tested from your next assessment. Start with the member space, for free.