Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Human Kinetics

The Journal of Academy of Physical Education in Katowice

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.798
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.252

CiteScore 2016: 1.16

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.483
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.792

Open Access
Online
ISSN
1899-7562
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Just Accepted

Issues

Speed of Visual Sensorimotor Processes and Conductivity of Visual Pathway in Volleyball Players

Teresa Zwierko / Wieslaw Osinski
  • Department of Theory of Physical Education and Anthropomotoric, Academy of Physical Education, Poznan, Poland
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Wojciech Lubinski / Damian Czepita / Beata Florkiewicz
Published Online: 2010-05-24 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10078-010-0003-8

Speed of Visual Sensorimotor Processes and Conductivity of Visual Pathway in Volleyball Players

Volleyball is a dynamic game which requires a high level of visual skills. The first aim of this study was to investigate the several aspects of reaction times (RT) to visual stimuli in volleyball players (12) compared to non-athletic subjects (12). By using the tests included in the Vienna Test System (Schuhfried, Austria), simple reaction time (SRT), choice reaction time (CRT) and peripheral reaction time (PRT) were examined. The second aim of this study was to assess the neurophysiological basis of early visual sensory processing in both examined groups. We measured two sets of pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials (VEPs) during monocular central field stimulation (Reti Scan, Roland Consult, Germany). The latencies of waves N75, P100 and N135 were determined. We observed significantly shorter (p<0.05) total reaction time to stimuli appearing in the central and peripheral field of vision in the volleyball players compared to non-athletes. With regard to SRT and CRT the main differences between the groups appeared in pre-motor reaction times. Volleyball players had shorter VEPs P100 wave latencies (p<0.05) than the non-athlete group. The results indicate faster signal transmission in visual pathways in athletes than in non-athletes. This fact can be attributed to the effect of rapid visual-activity-demanding sports on the central nervous system.

Keywords: reaction time; visual evoked potentials; volleyball

  • Allison T., Wood C. C., Goff W. R. Brain stem auditory, pattern-reversal visual, and short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials: latencies in relation to age, sex, and brain and body size. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1983. 55: 619-36PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ando S., Kida N., Oda S. Central and peripheral visual reaction time of soccer players and nonathletes. Percept Mot Skills, 2001. 92 (3): 786-794PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Bhanot J. L., Sindu L. S. Comparative study of reaction time in Indian sportsmen specializing in hockey, volleyball, weightlifting and gymnastics. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 1980. 20:113-118Google Scholar

  • Borysiuk Z., Waśkiewicz Z. Information processes, stimulation and perceptual training in fencing. Journal of Human Kinetics, 2008. 19: 63-82Google Scholar

  • Botwinick J., Thompson L. W. Premotor and motor components of reaction time. J Exp Psychol, 1966. 71(1): 9-15PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Christenson G. N., Winkelstein A. M. Visual skills of athletes versus nonathletes: development of a sports vision testing battery. J Am Optom Assoc, 1988. 59(9): 666-75PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Colak T., Bamac B., Ozbek A., Bamac Y. S. Nerve conduction studies of upper extremities in tennis players. Br J Sports Med, 2004. 38(5): 632-635CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Delpont E., Dolisi C., Suisse G., Bodino G., Gastaud M. Visual evoked potentials: differences related to physical activity. Int J Sports Med, 1991. 12(3): 293-8CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Doğan B. Multiple-choice reaction and visual perception in female and male elite athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 2009. 49(1): 91-96Google Scholar

  • Endo H., Kato Y., Kizuka T., Takeda T. A comparison of stimulus synchronous activity in the primary motor cortices of athletes and nonathletes. Exp Brain Res, 2006. 174: 426-434CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Enns J., Richards J. Visual attentional orienting in developing hockey players. J Exp Child Psychol, 1997. 23: 303-310Google Scholar

  • Erickson G. Sports vision: vision care for the enhancement of sports performance. St. Louis, Mo.: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007.Google Scholar

  • Fontani G., Maffei D., Cameli S., Polidori F. Reactivity and event-related potentials during attentional tests in athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol, 1999. 80: 308-317CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Halliday A. M. The visual evoked potentials in healthy subjects. In: Evoked potentials in clinic testing (ed. Halliday A. M.). Churchill Livingstone, 1993.Google Scholar

  • Harbin G., Durst L., Harbin D. Evaluation of oculomotor response in relationship to sports performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc, 1987. 21(3): 258-262Google Scholar

  • Helsen W. F., Starkes J. L. A multidimensional approach to skilled perception and performance in sport. App Cognit Psychol, 1999. 13: 1-27CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hoyle R. J., Holt L. E. Comparison of athletes and nonathletes on selected neuromuscular tests. Aust J Sport Sci, 1983. 3(1):13-18Google Scholar

  • Jafarzadehpur E., Aazami N., Bolouri B. Comparison of saccadic eye movements and facility of ocular accommodation in female volleyball players and non-players. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 2007. 17 (2): 186-190CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Jasper H. The ten twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1958. 10: 370-375Google Scholar

  • Kokubu M., Ando S., Kida N., Oda S. Interference effects between saccadic and key-press reaction times of volleyball players and nonathletes. Percept Mot Skills, 2006. 103(3):709-716PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • LiviottiG., Lobietti R., Fantozzi S., Merni F. Reaction times in volleyball block: a biomechanical analysis. www.sportkinetics2007.com

  • Marmor M. F., Holder G. E., Seeliger M. W., Yamamoto S. Standard for clinical electroretinography. Doc Ophthalmol, 2004. 108: 107-114PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • McAuliffe J. Differences in attentional set between athletes and nonathletes. J Gen Psychol, 2004. 131(4): 426-437PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McLeod P. Visual reaction time and high-speed ball games. Perception, 1987. 16: 49-59CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Ozbek A., Bamac B., Budak F., Yenigun N., Colak T. Nerve conduction study of the ulnar nerve in volleyball players. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 2006. 16(3): 197-200CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Palacz O., Lubiński W., Penkala K. Elektrofizjologiczna diagnostyka kliniczna układu wzrokowego. Oftal Warszawa, 2003.Google Scholar

  • Ross A., Leveritt M., Riek S. Neural influences on sprint running: training adaptations and acute responses. Sports Med, 2001. 31(6): 409-25PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Smith L., Besio W., Tarjan P., Asfour S. Hemiplegia and its effect upon fractionated premotor, motor and ankle dorsiflexion reaction times. Percept Mot Skills, 1998. 86: 955-964Google Scholar

  • Thomas N. G., Harden L. M., Rogers G. G. Visual evoked potentials, reaction times and eye dominance in cricketers. J Sports Med. Phys Fitness, 2005. 45(3): 428-433Google Scholar

  • Venter S. C., Ferreira J. T. A comparison of visual skills of high school rugby players from two different age groups. S Afr Optom, 2004. 63: 19-29Google Scholar

  • Zeki S. A vision of the brain. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1993.Google Scholar

  • Zwierko T. Differences in peripheral perception between athletes and nonathletes. Journal of Human Kinetics, 2008. 19: 53-62Google Scholar

About the article


Published Online: 2010-05-24

Published in Print: 2010-01-01


Citation Information: Journal of Human Kinetics, ISSN (Online) 1899-7562, ISSN (Print) 1640-5544, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10078-010-0003-8.

Export Citation

This content is open access.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Mónica Muiños and Soledad Ballesteros
Perception, 2013, Volume 42, Number 10, Page 1043
[2]
THORBEN HÜLSDÜNKER, HEIKO K. STRÜDER, and ANDREAS MIERAU
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2017, Volume 49, Number 6, Page 1097
[3]
Preshanta Naicker, Shailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie, Gary D. Grant, Luca Modenese, and Justin J. Kavanagh
Psychopharmacology, 2017, Volume 234, Number 4, Page 671
[4]
THORBEN HÜLSDÜNKER, HEIKO K. STRÜDER, and ANDREAS MIERAU
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2016, Volume 48, Number 11, Page 2125
[5]
Holger Heppe, Axel Kohler, Marie-Therese Fleddermann, and Karen Zentgraf
Frontiers in Psychology, 2016, Volume 7
[6]
Nathanael Chong Hao Ong
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2015, Volume 8, Number 1, Page 204
[7]
Mónica Muiños and Soledad Ballesteros
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 2014, Volume 76, Number 8, Page 2465
[8]
Alessandro Piras, Roberto Lobietti, and Salvatore Squatrito
Journal of Ophthalmology, 2014, Volume 2014, Page 1
[9]
Teresa Zwierko, Wojciech Lubiński, Anna Lubkowska, Ewa Niechwiej-szwedo, and Damian Czepita
Journal of Sports Sciences, 2011, Volume 29, Number 14, Page 1563

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in