エピソード

  • The Right Amount of Noise

    The Right Amount of Noise
    2026/09/16
    Everything in training assumes that cleaner is better. Cleaner mechanics, cleaner reps, cleaner video, cleaner data. For most of what we do, that is correct. For the visual system, it is sometimes exactly backward.In this episode, Dr. Laby unpacks stochastic resonance, the phenomenon that in a nonlinear system, adding a precise amount of random noise makes a weak signal easier to detect rather than harder. He walks through Figure 10.1 from Chapter 10 of Eye of the Champion, where a greyscale flag invisible at low contrast emerges once the right amount of noise is added, then disappears again when too much is piled on. The explanation sits at the level of a single neuron: a go or no-go device that stays silent below its firing threshold, and that a little random fluctuation can push over the edge.Then he brings it to the field. A hitter has roughly 100 milliseconds to identify a pitch, working from the orientation and rate of spinning seams on a three inch ball at 40 to 50 feet. That is a near-threshold signal, which is exactly the regime where stochastic resonance operates.The turn in the episode is an honest one. The obvious question is who benefits, and the literature does not currently agree. A 2008 study in Tokyo found that the quieter an observer’s internal neural noise, the larger their gain. A 2025 study in Ankara, with 149 participants, found the opposite: the largest gains went to those with the lowest baseline sensitivity. A separate 2023 finding is harder still, showing that an individually optimized noise dose did not replicate when retested in a different session.The conclusion is a dose, not a direction. More is not better. Optimal is better, and right now, nobody can reliably find the same optimum twice in the same athlete.Episode Timestamps0:00 The assumption that cleaner is always better, and where it breaks down0:35 What stochastic resonance is, and why Chapter 10 of Eye of the Champion gives it a section1:05 Figure 10.1: a greyscale flag, six levels of noise, and the dose in the middle1:45 Why a single neuron behaves this way: firing thresholds and go or no-go2:30 Noise carries no information, it lends the signal a push2:55 The hitter’s 100 millisecond window, and why spinning seams are a near-threshold signal3:25 Beyond vision: the Ross ankle instability trial and balance from noise too faint to feel3:55 Who benefits? The 2008 Tokyo stereoscope study and internal neural noise4:35 The 2025 Ankara study, 149 participants, and the opposite answer5:05 The 2023 replication problem: Monday’s optimal dose is not Tuesday’s5:35 The inverted U, and why overshooting degrades the athlete6:00 Noise on a screen works as well as noise through electrodes6:20 Nothing to report on the spin app yet, and the bottom lineIn This Episode, You’ll LearnWhat stochastic resonance is, in plain language, and why noise can help rather than hurtWhy the single neuron’s firing threshold is what makes the whole phenomenon possibleWhy a hitter’s pitch identification window is a textbook near-threshold signal detection problemThat sub-sensory noise improved postural control in a randomized trial of people with unstable anklesWhy two careful studies disagree about which athlete benefits, and what that means for prescribingWhy an individually optimized noise dose may not survive to the next dayThat the dose-response curve is an inverted U, so overshooting actively degrades performanceWhy noise delivered through a display works about as well as noise delivered through electrodesWhat has not been studied at all: pitch recognition, spin discrimination, and any competitive outcomeHelpful ResourcesSports Vision NYCConnect with Dr. Laby on InstagramPick Up a Copy of Eye of the ChampionDownload The Ultimate Sports Vision Guide for Athletes [FREE]Don’t forget to subscribe to Sports Vision Radio so you never miss an episode on the science of peak performance.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    8 分
  • Why Your Peripheral Vision May Predict Your Next ACL Injury

    Why Your Peripheral Vision May Predict Your Next ACL Injury
    2026/09/09

    You jump for the ball. A defender moves into your peripheral vision. A teammate calls for the pass. Your original plan is gone, and you make a new decision in mid-air before you even land. What started that movement wasn’t your legs — it was your vision.

    This episode breaks down a 2026 study in Sports Health that tested 50 healthy athletes on a jump-land-jump task under rising visual and cognitive demand. Error rates climbed from 0% when the task was predictable to 2.8% when it wasn’t, to 35.5% when peripheral-vision demand and cognitive pressure were combined — and when athletes failed, their landing mechanics shifted toward the exact pattern (increased knee abduction, reduced joint flexion) associated with greater ACL loading.

    Dr. Laby connects this new finding to nearly two decades of research — Swanik (2007), Wilkerson, a 2023 systematic review, and the 2015 Grooms/Appelbaum/Onate clinical framework — and to the Sports Vision Pyramid from Eye of the Champion. The throughline: ACL injury and re-injury risk may be partly a visual-cognitive load-tolerance problem, one that shows up not on an athlete’s best rep, but at the moment attention is stretched and a rapid decision has to be made.

    Episode Timestamps
    • 0:00 — Intro: the jump, the defender, the mid-air decision
    • 0:52 — Vision is prediction: why great athletes seem to have more time
    • 1:38 — The 2026 study: jump-land-jump task, and the 0% → 2.8% → 35.5% error jump
    • 2:32 — Why peripheral vision matters: attention, UFOV, and the Flanker test
    • 3:32 — The Sports Vision Pyramid (from Eye of the Champion) and where this research sits on it
    • 4:27 — The brain-knee connection: Swanik, Wilkerson, and the 2023 systematic review
    • 5:27 — From the knee to the nervous system: Grooms, Appelbaum, and Onate’s 2015 framework
    • 6:47 — Testing the athlete, not just the movement
    • 7:25 — What this means for your training and rehab
    • 8:09 — The final question: are you testing how you move when the visual pressure feels like the game?

    In This Episode, You’ll Learn
    • Why “seeing clearly” is only the base of the Sports Vision Pyramid and why sport is usually decided higher up, at the decision and vision-to-action levels.
    • The exact numbers from the 2026 Sports Health study: error rates of 0% (anticipated), 2.8% (unanticipated), and 35.5% (combined cognitive + peripheral-vision load) — and why lower peripheral-vision accuracy specifically predicted the errors.
    • What happens to landing mechanics when an athlete fails under visual-cognitive load: increased knee abduction and reduced joint flexion, the movement signature linked to higher ACL loading.
    • Nearly 20 years of research — Swanik (2007), Wilkerson, and a 2023 systematic review — have built the case that ACL injury risk has a neurocognitive and visual component, not just a strength/biomechanics one.
    • Why Grooms, Appelbaum, and Onate’s 2015 clinical framework argues for making return-to-sport rehab more visually and cognitively “game-realistic,” not just mechanically sound.
    • Practical questions to ask about your own training: does it include realistic visual decisions, and does it hold up as the visual scene gets faster and more complex?

    Helpful Resources
    • Sports Vision NYC
    • Connect with Dr. Laby on Instagram
    • Pick Up a Copy of Eye of the Champion
    • Download The Ultimate Sports Vision Guide for Athletes [FREE]

    Don’t forget to subscribe to Sports Vision Radio so you never miss an episode on the science of peak performance.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    10 分
  • Great Athletes Don’t Just See. They Predict

    Great Athletes Don’t Just See. They Predict
    2026/09/02

    An athlete’s advantage was never just about sharp eyesight.

    Two new studies, from very different corners of science, land on the same point Dr. Laby has made throughout his career: performance depends not only on what the eyes detect, but on what the brain selects, stores, and converts into action.

    The first, a peer-reviewed study out of the University of Pretoria, found that a hard, sport-specific rugby training session produced measurable improvements in visual skills like tracking, vergence, and eye-hand coordination.

    The second, a preprint from the Dunsmoor Lab at UT Austin, used a non-invasive brain stimulation technique aimed at quieting the amygdala, and instead found it sharpened memory, suggesting the amygdala may act as a filter deciding which faint or ambiguous signals get through to conscious processing.

    Dr. Laby connects both findings to the Sports Vision Pyramid and to vision as a predictive system, not a passive one.

    Episode Timestamps
    • 0:00 — Introduction: why “great eyes” is the wrong explanation
    • 0:45 — The one-second decision: a footballer reading a closing defense
    • 1:30 — Study 1 setup: 26 rugby players, a hard sport-specific session
    • 2:30 — Study 1 results: which visual skills improved, and why that matters
    • 3:15 — Study 1 caveats: small sample, no control group, no persistence data
    • 3:45 — Study 2 setup: focused ultrasound targeting the amygdala
    • 4:45 — Study 2 results: quieting the “alarm” sharpened memory
    • 5:35 — Vision as prediction and the Sports Vision Pyramid
    • 6:15 — What this means for coaches and athletes on the field

    In This Episode You’ll Learn
    • Why “great eyes” almost never explains what’s actually happening when an athlete makes a fast, skilled play
    • How a 60-minute, sport-specific rugby training session produced statistically significant gains in six distinct visual skills
    • Why exercise-driven arousal may temporarily prime the visual and attentional system, and why that finding shouldn’t be oversold
    • What the amygdala’s role as a possible “gatekeeper” of faint or ambiguous signals means for training attention, not just eyesight
    • Why vision in sport works as a predictive system, combining present input with stored experience, not a simple recording of what’s in front of the athlete
    • How the Sports Vision Pyramid explains why 20/20 acuity alone guarantees nothing about decision speed or anticipation

    Helpful Resources
    • Sports Vision NYC
    • Connect with Dr. Laby on Instagram
    • Pick Up a Copy of Eye of the Champion
    • Download The Ultimate Sports Vision Guide for Athletes [FREE]

    Don’t forget to subscribe to Sports Vision Radio so you never miss an episode on the science of peak performance.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    8 分
  • 23 Out of 24: What My Own Eyes Actually Look Like on the Data

    23 Out of 24: What My Own Eyes Actually Look Like on the Data
    2026/08/26
    This week Dr. Laby hands listeners his own scorecard. Sitting at his desk with nothing but a laptop camera and a piece of software he has been building and rebuilding for weeks, he runs himself through two tasks on his own eyetracker_v7 tool: a saccade test and an antisaccade test. No patient chart, no clinic lighting, just his own eyes and the real numbers.He walks through why the terms matter (saccade, smooth pursuit, and the far less familiar antisaccadic inhibitory control), why he could not find a single consumer or professional vision-training platform that actually measures a true antisaccade response rather than substituting a button click for an eye movement, and why he ended up building that missing piece himself. He is candid about the debugging mess behind the clean numbers, a stale data buffer, a velocity calculation that diluted fast eye movements, a display bug that let him see his own gaze and defeat the blind nature of the test, and frames that transparency itself as part of why the dataset can be trusted.The episode closes on two real same-day runs (Saccade 20/20 both times, Antisaccade 23 of 24 both times) as an early reproducibility signal, explicitly flagged as a starting point rather than a finished validation, and connects the whole exercise back to the Athletic Vision Pyramid from Eye of the Champion: saccades and pursuit gather the visual information, antisaccadic inhibitory control decides whether that information gets acted on correctly under real time pressure.Episode Timestamps[00:00] Heads Up, This One’s Different — Handing Over My Own Scorecard[00:45] Defining the Terms — What a Saccade Actually Is[01:35] Smooth Pursuit, the Other Half of How Eyes Gather Information[02:05] The Third Piece Almost Nobody Has Heard Of — Antisaccadic Inhibitory Control[02:55] The Vision-to-Action Chain, and Why Inhibitory Control Is the Gatekeeper[03:20] The Gap I Found — No Consumer Tool Actually Measures a Real Antisaccade[04:00] Building the Third Mode Into eyetracker_v7[04:45] The Debugging Mess Behind the Clean Numbers[05:35] Today’s Run — Saccade 20/20, Antisaccade 23 of 24[06:15] Why the Error-Corrected Trials Are the Interesting Number, Not the Bad One[06:50] Two Runs, Same Day — An Early Reproducibility Signal, Not a Finished Validation[07:20] Why This Is Not Abstract for an Athlete[07:55] What Comes Next — Testing the System Until It FailsIn This Episode, You’ll LearnWhat a saccade is, what smooth pursuit is, and why they’re only two of the three ways your eyes gather information that matters in sportWhat antisaccadic inhibitory control actually measures, and why it is a direct, real-time readout of your brain’s ability to override a reflex with a decisionWhy Dr. Laby could not find a single consumer or professional vision-training platform that measures a genuine, gaze-verified antisaccade response, and why a click or key press is a fundamentally different taskHow eyetracker_v7 works: a five-point calibration step, and three modes (Pursuit, Saccade, and the new Antisaccade mode)The real debugging history behind the tool, including a stale gaze buffer, a velocity calculation that diluted fast eye movements, and a display bug that broke the blind nature of the test, and why showing that mess matters for trusting the final numbersToday’s actual results: Saccade mode 20 of 20 completions with zero timeouts; Antisaccade mode 23 of 24 real completions, 19 correct and 4 error-corrected, with only one timeoutWhy an error-corrected trial (a reflexive glance caught and self-corrected) is evidence the inhibitory system is working, not evidence it is failingWhy same-day reproducibility across two runs is an encouraging early signal, not a substitute for the formal test-retest validation, larger samples, and standardized comparison against a validated tracker that real proof still requiresWhy suppressing a reflexive glance under time pressure shows up constantly in sport, from a hitter not chasing a pitch to a goalkeeper not committing early to a fakeHelpful ResourcesSports Vision NYCConnect with Dr. Laby on InstagramPick Up a Copy of Eye of the ChampionDownload The Ultimate Sports Vision Guide for Athletes [FREE]Don’t forget to subscribe to Sports Vision Radio so you never miss an episode on the science of peak performance.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    10 分
  • You Can’t Test a Batter’s Eyes Without a Bat

    You Can’t Test a Batter’s Eyes Without a Bat
    2026/08/19

    A new 2026 study in the journal Vision (Clutter & Fogt) put 15 baseball and softball batters through the same pitch, tracked two different ways: once with a real partial swing, once with no swing at all, just watching and verbally predicting where the ball would cross the plate. The pitches were identical in both conditions. The only thing that changed was whether the batter’s body was actually going to do something about it.

    The result: batters made far more predictive eye jumps (saccades) when just watching and guessing than when actually swinging, a statistically significant gap. Dr. Laby argues this isn’t a narrow footnote about saccade frequency. It’s evidence that the visual system itself changes strategy the instant it’s coupled to a real motor action, exactly the trap he’s warned about for years: mistaking a clean, passive vision screening for a measurement of how an athlete actually sees in competition.

    He connects the finding to his own decade-old experience eye-tracking MLB batters, to the Athletic Vision Pyramid from Eye of the Champion, and to a practical filter for evaluating any vision-training tool: is this task coupled to the real skill, or is it an isolated proxy for it?

    Episode Timestamps
    • [00:00] The Argument That Finally Has Data
    • [00:35] The 2026 Study — 15 Batters, Two Tasks, One Pitch
    • [01:10] What a Saccade Is, and What It Means When the Eyes Jump
    • [01:40] The Numbers — 53% vs. 39.7%
    • [02:10] Why This Is the Whole Ballgame, Not a Footnote
    • [02:45] The MLB Story — Ball-or-Strike vs. Actually Swinging
    • [03:20] The Athletic Vision Pyramid — Where the Wiring Breaks
    • [03:55] The Coupled-vs-Isolated Filter (and the Batting-Practice Question)
    • [04:35] What’s Still Missing — Small Sample, Next Steps
    • [05:15] The Eyes Are Part of the Decision

    In This Episode, You’ll Learn
    • Why a batter’s eyes track a pitch differently depending on whether a swing is actually coming
    • What a saccade is, and why more of them means the eyes are guessing instead of tracking
    • The actual numbers from the 2026 Clutter & Fogt study: 53.0% predictive saccades when just watching vs. 39.7% when swinging
    • Why “coupled” (real action) vs. “uncoupled” (passive prediction) vision testing produces genuinely different data, not just a different framing of the same task
    • How this connects to Dr. Laby’s own MLB eye-tracking work, where ball-or-strike judgment and actual swinging produced different eye and head behavior
    • Why the Athletic Vision Pyramid means you can’t fully evaluate the top (execution) by only testing the middle (tracking) in isolation
    • A practical filter for any vision-training program: is this drill coupled to the real skill, or a clean, isolated proxy for it?

    Helpful Resources
    • Sports Vision NYC
    • Connect with Dr. Laby on Instagram
    • Pick Up a Copy of Eye of the Champion
    • Download The Ultimate Sports Vision Guide for Athletes [FREE]

    Don’t forget to subscribe to Sports Vision Radio so you never miss an episode on the science of peak performance.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    6 分
  • You Can’t Test a Batter’s Eyes Without a Bat

    You Can’t Test a Batter’s Eyes Without a Bat
    2026/08/19

    A new 2026 study in the journal Vision (Clutter & Fogt) put 15 baseball and softball batters through the same pitch, tracked two different ways: once with a real partial swing, once with no swing at all, just watching and verbally predicting where the ball would cross the plate. The pitches were identical in both conditions. The only thing that changed was whether the batter’s body was actually going to do something about it.

    The result: batters made far more predictive eye jumps (saccades) when just watching and guessing than when actually swinging, a statistically significant gap. Dr. Laby argues this isn’t a narrow footnote about saccade frequency. It’s evidence that the visual system itself changes strategy the instant it’s coupled to a real motor action, exactly the trap he’s warned about for years: mistaking a clean, passive vision screening for a measurement of how an athlete actually sees in competition.

    He connects the finding to his own decade-old experience eye-tracking MLB batters, to the Athletic Vision Pyramid from Eye of the Champion, and to a practical filter for evaluating any vision-training tool: is this task coupled to the real skill, or is it an isolated proxy for it?

    Episode Timestamps
    • [00:00] The Argument That Finally Has Data
    • [00:35] The 2026 Study — 15 Batters, Two Tasks, One Pitch
    • [01:10] What a Saccade Is, and What It Means When the Eyes Jump
    • [01:40] The Numbers — 53% vs. 39.7%
    • [02:10] Why This Is the Whole Ballgame, Not a Footnote
    • [02:45] The MLB Story — Ball-or-Strike vs. Actually Swinging
    • [03:20] The Athletic Vision Pyramid — Where the Wiring Breaks
    • [03:55] The Coupled-vs-Isolated Filter (and the Batting-Practice Question)
    • [04:35] What’s Still Missing — Small Sample, Next Steps
    • [05:15] The Eyes Are Part of the Decision

    In This Episode, You’ll Learn
    • Why a batter’s eyes track a pitch differently depending on whether a swing is actually coming
    • What a saccade is, and why more of them means the eyes are guessing instead of tracking
    • The actual numbers from the 2026 Clutter & Fogt study: 53.0% predictive saccades when just watching vs. 39.7% when swinging
    • Why “coupled” (real action) vs. “uncoupled” (passive prediction) vision testing produces genuinely different data, not just a different framing of the same task
    • How this connects to Dr. Laby’s own MLB eye-tracking work, where ball-or-strike judgment and actual swinging produced different eye and head behavior
    • Why the Athletic Vision Pyramid means you can’t fully evaluate the top (execution) by only testing the middle (tracking) in isolation
    • A practical filter for any vision-training program: is this drill coupled to the real skill, or a clean, isolated proxy for it?

    Helpful Resources
    • Sports Vision NYC
    • Connect with Dr. Laby on Instagram
    • Pick Up a Copy of Eye of the Champion
    • Download The Ultimate Sports Vision Guide for Athletes [FREE]

    Don’t forget to subscribe to Sports Vision Radio so you never miss an episode on the science of peak performance.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    6 分
  • The Gap No One Is Talking About: Coaches Are Training Vision — But Don’t Know Why

    The Gap No One Is Talking About: Coaches Are Training Vision — But Don’t Know Why
    2026/08/12

    Seventy-three percent of coaches are now incorporating visual training into their programs — a number that should feel like a victory after thirty years of Dr. Laby making the case that vision is trainable and performance-critical.

    Instead, a new October 2025 study in Sports (Martinez-Perez et al., 2025) stops him short: across 155 coaches, mostly football and futsal coaches in Portugal, implementation rate had no statistically significant association with self-reported knowledge of sports vision. Coaches are doing it, but they can’t tell you why.

    The episode digs into the study’s most revealing finding — coaches rank reaction time as the single most important visual skill, ahead of hand-eye coordination and anticipation, with depth perception ranked near the bottom — and uses it to explain the Athletic Vision Pyramid from Eye of the Champion: reaction time sits at the apex, built entirely on a base of fundamental visual functions most training programs never touch.

    Dr. Laby argues coaches are already “ahead of the curve” on adoption; the real performance gains are locked behind understanding the how and the why, not just buying the tools.

    Episode Timestamps
    • [00:00] The Celebration That Wasn’t — 73% Adoption, Zero Knowledge Link
    • [00:30] The Study — 155 Coaches, Portugal, October 2025
    • [00:55] The Reaction Time Paradox — What Coaches Rank First
    • [01:20] Why Reaction Time Is a Visual-Perceptual Phenomenon, Not a Neuromuscular One
    • [01:50] The Athletic Vision Pyramid — Base, Middle, Apex
    • [02:20] You Can’t Train the Apex Without Building the Base
    • [02:50] “Intuitively” — What Coaches Know Without a Framework
    • [03:20] Strobe Glasses, Reaction Balls, and the Missing Framework
    • [03:50] Why Assessment Has to Come Before Training
    • [04:15] What the Survey Should Tell Coaches
    • [04:40] Reaction Time Is the Output, Not the Input
    • [05:00] The Door Is Open — Step Inside With a Plan

    In This Episode, You’ll Learn
    • Why 73% coach adoption of vision training is real progress — and why it still isn’t the win it looks like
    • What a 155-coach survey (Martinez-Perez et al., Sports, Oct. 2025) found about the gap between implementation and knowledge
    • Why coaches rank reaction time as the top visual skill, and why that ranking gets the causality backwards
    • Why reaction time in sport is a visual-perceptual phenomenon first, not primarily a neuromuscular one
    • How the Athletic Vision Pyramid from Eye of the Champion explains why you can’t train the apex without building the base
    • Why “intuitive” adoption — strobe glasses, reaction balls, light boards — stalls out without a framework or a baseline assessment
    • Why assessment has to come before training, and what the Athletic Vision Testing System is built to solve

    Helpful Resources
    • Sports Vision NYC
    • Connect with Dr. Laby on Instagram
    • Pick Up a Copy of Eye of the Champion
    • Download The Ultimate Sports Vision Guide for Athletes [FREE]

    Don't forget to subscribe to Sports Vision Radio so you never miss an episode on the science of peak performance.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    6 分
  • The Referee's Pupil, the Game's Truth

    The Referee's Pupil, the Game's Truth
    2026/08/05

    The cleaner a sports vision experiment gets, the less it looks like the sport — a tension Dr. Laby has wrestled with for thirty years.

    A lab can control lighting down to the lux and measure fixations to the millisecond, but only by stripping away the crowd, the pressure, and the bodies crossing in front of you.

    A new 2025 study by Lozzi and colleagues takes a real swing at closing that gap. Researchers placed Pupil Labs Neon wearable eye trackers on four referees and four coaches during two live basketball games, then layered computer vision AI — YOLOv8N for player tracking and Segformer for uniform and team identification — on top of the raw gaze data.

    The headline finding: referees' pupils got larger during defensive evaluations, read as a sign of heavier cognitive load. But Dr. Laby argues the more important story is the tool itself — a moving target-of-interest system that can finally tell you which team a referee's eyes were on as players crossed, screened, and rotated, instead of asking whether gaze landed inside a fixed box on a screen.

    The episode walks through why the pupil finding needs replication, what confounds pupillometry in a real arena, and why combining eye and head movement data opens the door to role-specific visual profiles — the actual goal of the Sports Vision Pyramid.

    Episode Timestamps
    • [00:00] The Lab Paradox — Cleaner Experiments, Less Like the Sport
    • [00:43] The Lohse 2025 Study — Wearables on Live Referees
    • [00:59] The Headline Finding — Pupils and Defensive Cognitive Load
    • [01:17] The Real Story — Four Tools Working Together
    • [01:28] Solving the Moving Target Problem
    • [02:10] Why the Result Isn't the Final Word
    • [02:33] The Confounds — Lighting, Arousal, Fatigue
    • [03:07] What This Setup Actually Proves
    • [03:37] Eye Movement vs. Head Movement
    • [05:12] The Real Opportunity — Role-Specific Visual Profiles
    • [05:43] Where Sports Vision Data Is Headed

    In This Episode, You'll Learn
    • Why the cleaner a lab experiment gets, the less it resembles the actual sport — and why that tension has defined 30 years of sports vision research
    • How Lohse et al. (2025) combined Pupil Labs Neon wearable eye trackers with YOLOv8N and Segformer AI to track referee and coach gaze during two live basketball games
    • The headline finding: referees' pupils got larger during defensive evaluations, read as a sign of heavier cognitive load — and why that finding still needs replication
    • Why pupil diameter is a real but noisy signal, confounded by lighting, arousal, and fatigue in a real arena
    • Why this study's real contribution isn't the pupil finding — it's a moving target-of-interest system that finally makes gaze data trustworthy during live, fast-moving play
    • How combining eye movement and head movement data opens sharper questions about scanning strategy, peripheral awareness, and anticipation
    • Why the opportunity is role-specific visual profiles, not a single pupil-size performance score

    Helpful Resources
    • Sports Vision NYC
    • Connect with Dr. Laby on Instagram
    • Pick Up a Copy of Eye of the Champion
    • Download The Ultimate Sports Vision Guide for Athletes [FREE]

    Don't forget to subscribe to Sports Vision Radio so you never miss an episode on the science of peak performance.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    8 分