Visuomotor orientation in 6 to 11 old children: comparison between tennis and not tennis player

INTRODUCTION. Several studies showed differences in visual information acquisition and motor task response between normal subjects and athletes: hockey (Enns, Richards, 1997), volley (Ripoll, 1988), tennis (Castello e Umiltà, 1988). There is scarce literature about children in prepubertal age (Lambert et al, 2005; Ferrel et al, 2001). AIM. of this study was to compare the children ocular orientation between tennis (TP) and not tennis players (NTP) and to verify the specific sport practice influence on perceptive abilities development. METHODS. The study involved 29 subjects aged 6-12 (mean 9,1): 8 f., 21 m; NTP: 17;TP: 12. Experimental test consisted of exposing the subjects to the vision of a video recorded sequence (38 sec.long) showing a tennis instructor performing service, forehand and backhand techniques. Sequence was observed two time with different clues: a) free vision; b) restricted area vision (follow the ball trajectory). Ocular movements were recorded by the EyeLink II API Computer System’s protocol at a frequency of 500 Hz. Interest areas were plotted on the video to verify the ocular orientation position on instructor area, left and right field area. Total number and time of ocular fixations on the screen were recorded for each subject. Mann-Whitney non parametric test for independent samples were used for the statistical analysis. DISCUSSION. In condition “a” no significant differences were found between NTP and TP (p>.05). In condition “b” significant differences were found in the following parameters: Total fixation Instructor Left area %Instructor %Left area area fix. fix. area fix. fix. p= ,049 p= ,001 p= ,014 p= ,007 p= ,014 NTP 80,70±15,46 26,30±8,31 8,80±2,20 51,54±25,67 17,37±2,92 TP 65,88±6,64 6,38±3,70 20,25±9,13 25,67±19,19 53,23±22,35 TP showed more attention on left interest area than on instructor area compared with NTP. On the same way TP showed a larger observations number on the left interest area compared with NTP. No significant differences were observed on the right and outline areas. CONCLUSIONS. Differences are not significant in condition “a” that can be assimilated to a general movement situation. In specific task as condition “b” was, training can improve perception and anticipation abilities especially in a complex task (left area, ball conducted by backhand) compared with a easy task (right area, forehand) (Smits-Engelsmann et al, 2006). NTP are tightly bind at easy perceptive task (e.g. to follow instructor figure). TP showed a higher ability in complex perceptive task (e.g. to follow ball trajectory). Further analyses and a larger sample is necessary to realize deeper studies about this subject. Bibliography. • Castiello U. e Umiltà C., 1988, “Attenzione e tennis”, SdS, nr. 7, pp 28-33 • Enns & Richards, 1997, “Visual Attentional Orienting in Developing Hockey Players” J.Experimental Child Psychology 64, 255-277 • Ferrel C., Bard C. e Fleury M., 2001, “Coordination in childhood: modifications of visuomotor representations in 6 to 11 year old children”, Experimental Brain Research, Jun; 138 (3):3 13-21, April. • Lambert J. e Bard C. (2005), “Acquisition of visuomanual skills and improvement of information processing capacities in 6- to 10-year-old children performing a 2D pointing task”, Neuroscience Letters, Volume 337, 22 March, pages. 1-6; • Ripoll H., 1988, “Analysis of Visual Scannig Patterns of Volleyball Players in a problem solving task”, International Journal of Sport Psycology, n.19, pp. 9-25; • Smits-Engelsman, David Sugden e Jacques Duysens, 2006, “Developmental trends in speed accuracy trade-off in 6–10-year-old children performing rapid reciprocal and discrete aiming movements”, Human Movement Science, Volume 25, February, pages. 37 – 49;