Properties of Gaze Strategies Based on Eye–Head Coordination in a Ball-Catching Task

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Ball catching

Nice paper minor comments

Introduction

For example, when tracking a moving object, the visual 33

image is first captured in the central or peripheral visual field, and based on this visual 34

information, the speed, trajectory, and spatial location of the ball are estimated.

Not very clear- what info. Is gathered by first fixating the object?

need to predict the trajectory of the ball and 47 decide when to contact the exact time and position of the ball, and that more experienced 48

and decide the exact time and position of the ball’s bounce- Is this what you are saying?

Line 54 ‘gaze behaviour’ perhaps better than gazing behaviour.

Methods

Line 96 it would be helpful to list what parameters of eye and head movement are recorded before describing the measuring apparatus.

Results

Figure 2 is the most important figure in the paper – can you add another panel  showing gaze eye and head movements of  the tennis group?

Discussion

Does the nice result of almost stationary gaze in the softball group mean that in this group the  information for catching is almost entirely visual? If so, be worth emphasising a bit more.

I've identified above a few places where the English was hard to follow. Mostly OK.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

  This is a well written and interesting paper on the effect of expertise on head and eye movements when  catching balls. The new finding is that tennis players and softball players have similar strategies, which is interesting given the very different task demands imposed by the two sports. One may say, simplistically, that vision conquers all. I recommend publication in ‘Vision’.

Some details.

1.       I am not familiar with this particular EOG system, but typically, EOGs measure onset and offset of eye movements accurately, but are much less accurate about the extent of the movement.  Error in both horizontal and vertical extents mean the angle of gaze shift is especially inaccurate.  The authors’ system may have overcome these limitations enough for their purposes. Please explain the calibration procedures used (line 104). (For example, what did the EOG record when the subject make saccades to various calibration points ?).

2.       I did not see how the head position was analyzed (line 96 does not say). I presume this was from the fast video-tracking ?  If so, please explain how the video frames were analyzed to determine head position.

3.       Lines 185-187: the correlations should be printed with +, not –

4.       Fig.6: the authors should force the origins to (0,0), for logical reasons. The slopes will be steeper, and the resulting correlations only slightly smaller.  (Most software offers this choice. The correlation will be between the best-fit straight line through the origin, and the data points. If the software only offers the slope of this line, then simply tabulate the data and the predictions from the line, and correlate them.)

5.       Important. Half the time, the novices DID catch the ball. What happened to their eye and head movements on these, the successful, trials ? (Currently, as far as I can tell, the authors only give the data aggregated over successful and unsuccessful trials). This is critical to know - after all, on successful trials, the novices may be just as good as the experts (though I doubt it.)

END OF REVIEW.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study delves into the nuanced visual search strategies employed by skilled athletes and novices during a ball-catching task. By analyzing eye and head movement data, researchers discerned that skilled players exhibit notably more stable movements compared to novices, indicating a potentially superior visual search strategy conducive to enhanced sports performance. However, the manuscript necessitates refinement in several areas to ensure its suitability for publication.

1. Enhanced Literature Review: The introduction should incorporate a more comprehensive review of related work, elucidating the significance of the study and addressing pertinent research gaps within the field.

2. Abstract Clarity and Novelty: The abstract requires revision to clearly articulate the study's motivation and underscore its novelty, thereby capturing the interest of readers and highlighting the unique contributions of the research.

3. Introduction Coherence and Significance: Authors are encouraged to explicitly outline the primary contribution and novelty of their research within the introduction, offering clarity on its significance within the broader scientific context.

4. Comprehensive Conclusion: A more robust and informative conclusion is necessary to succinctly summarize key findings, emphasize their significance, and elucidate their potential impact within the scientific community.

5. Detailed Experiment Explanation: The experiment's methodology should be elucidated in full detail to ensure clarity and reproducibility. Currently, it lacks sufficient clarity, hindering understanding and interpretation.

6. Inadequate Discussion Section: The discussion segment necessitates improvement, requiring critical analysis and a substantial summary of cited papers alongside their key findings to provide context and depth to the study's results.

7. Improved Presentation of Results: Consider presenting results using violin plots in Figures 4 and 5 for better comparability within groups, enhancing the clarity and interpretability of the findings.

Addressing these points comprehensively will significantly enhance the manuscript's quality and increase its potential for acceptance in scientific publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

“Properties of gaze strategies based on eye-head coordination in a ball-catching task”（ vision-2896679）

This manuscript aimed to determine visual search strategies based on eye and head movements during a ball-catching task in a comparison of an athlete group and a novice group. The results showed that the athlete group had lower upward peak eye velocity and peak head velocity than the novice group. In addition, when the head was pitched upward, downward eye velocity was induced in the novice group. Overall, this topic is interesting and the findings hold some practical implications. However, some concerns appeared after reading the whole manuscript.

1. Some important papers need to be reviewed and discussed, such as,

Mann, D. L., 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.

It would be interesting to discuss the current findings with the two-visual-system hypothesis.

Mann, D. L., Fortin-Guichard, D., & Nakamoto, H. (2021). Sport performance and the two-visual-system hypothesis of vision: two pathways but still many questions. Optometry and Vision Science, 98(7), 696-703.

2. How did you determine the sample size? Did you calculate the sample size needed before formal study?

3. The inclusion of tennis group should be justified.

4. In figure 2, why tennis group was not included?

5. Please provide the effect size where available.

6. A limitation and future directions part need to be added in the discussion section.

7. The research gaps need to be stated more clearly in the introduction part.

8. For the mark of significance, “***: p < 0.001, **: p < 0.01, *: p < 0.05,” should be applied.

9. Please add the meaning of error bar in the figure captions.

10. For the p value, please provide the specific data unless it is less than 0.001.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you to the authors for their efforts to improve the paper based on the comments of the reviewers

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewers' thoughtful critiques and comments on our manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks for the revisions and no further concerns.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewers' thoughtful critiques and comments on our manuscript.

We have checked the English language and grammar again throughout the text.