Quiet eye training aids the long-term learning of throwing and catching in children: Preliminary evidence for a predictive control strategy.

Quiet eye training (QET) may be a more effective method for teaching children to catch than traditional training (TT) methods, but it is unclear if the benefits accrued persist in the long term. Thirty children were randomly allocated into a QET or TT group and, while wearing a mobile eye tracker, underwent baseline testing, training and two retention tests over a period of eight weeks, using a validated throw and catch task. During training, movement-related information was provided to both groups, while the QET group received additional instruction to increase the duration of their targeting fixation (QE1) on the wall prior to the throw, and pursuit tracking (QE2) period on the ball prior to catching. In both immediate (R1) and delayed (R2, six weeks later) retention tests, the QET group had a significantly longer QE1 duration and an earlier and longer QE2 duration, compared to the TT group, who revealed no improvements. A performance advantage was also found for the QET compared to the TT group at both R1 and R2, revealing the relatively robust nature of the visuomotor alterations. Regression analyses suggested that only the duration of QE1 predicted variance in catch success post-training, pointing to the importance of a pre-programming visuomotor strategy for successful throw and catch performance.

Quiet eye training facilitates visuomotor coordination in children with developmental coordination disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Quiet eye training (QET) has been shown to be more effective than traditional training (TT) methods for teaching a throw and catch task to typically developing 8-10 yr old children. The current study aimed to apply the technique to children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). METHOD: 30 children with DCD were randomly allocated into TT or QET intervention groups. The TT group were taught how to control their arm movements during the throw and catch phases, while the QET group were also taught to fixate a target location on the wall prior to the throw (quiet eye1; QE1), followed by tracking the ball prior to the catch (quiet eye2; QE2). Performance, gaze and motion analysis data were collected at pre/post-training and 6-week retention. RESULTS: The QET group significantly increased QE durations from pre-training to delayed retention (QE1 = +247 ms, QE2 = +19%) whereas the TT group experienced a reduction (QE1 = -74 ms, QE2 = -4%). QET participants showed significant improvement in the quality of their catch attempts and increased elbow flexion at catch compared to the TT group (QET = -28°, TT = -1°). CONCLUSION: QET changed DCD children's ability to focus on a target on the wall prior to the throw, followed by better anticipation and pursuit tracking on the ball, which in turn led to improved catching technique. QET may be an effective adjunct to traditional instructions, for therapists teaching visuomotor skills to children with DCD.