The Closer, The Harder? Investigating the use of peripheral vision in 3vs3 counter-attack VR situations in football

Abstract

Introduction: Peripheral vision has been reported to be functional in team sports when monitoring the movements of multiple players (Vater et al., 2019). Expert soccer players for example report to use their peripheral vision in 3 vs. 3 football situations (Vater et al., 2019). It seems that they anchor their gaze on the player's possession of the ball to monitor peripheral events (e.g., movements of other players). In this experimental study, we challenged the use of peripheral vision by varying the distance between the direct opponent and the participant in a virtual-reality counterattack situation.

Methods: Eighteen experienced football players were shown 3 vs. 3 virtual-reality football counter-attack situations from the perspective of the central defender. Their task was to detect the overrun of a wing striker on the right or left while monitoring a direct opponent who is about to pass to the striker that overruns his defender. In case there was an overrun on one side, a defensive movement to the right or left direction should be initiated as before the pass was played, ensuring that they would monitor the peripheral players and not wait for the pass. In half of the trials, both wing strikers out-ran their defenders, so the correct decision was to move after the direct opponent played the pass. As an independent variable, the distance between the direct opponent and the participant was systematically varied (10, 15 and 20 m; the distance at which the pass occurs). Decision accuracy and fixation characteristics were examined. Head orientation and body movements were captured with a 14-camera Optitrack system to assess if participants moved before or after the pass. Gaze behavior was differentiated between the monitoring (before overrun) and the decision-making phase (after overrun). It was predicted that the closer the distance the more likely that participants would fixate on the direct opponent and use peripheral vision instead of foveal vision.

Results: The results showed that fixation distance significantly increased with direct opponent distance, F(1.585, 53.889) = 181.428, p < .001, η²p = 0.842, with significant differences between all distances (p< .001). Gaze behavior differed markedly between monitoring and execution phases F(1, 34) = 49.194, p < .001, η²p = 0.591. Fixation distance decreased from monitoring to the decision-making phase. The percentage of fixations on the direct opponent decreased with increasing distance, F(2, 34) = 11.766, p < .001, η²p = 0.409. While timing accuracy did not vary across distances, F(2, 34) = 2.185, p = .128, η²p = 0.114, decision-making accuracy improved significantly at larger distances, F(2, 34) = 5.332, p = .010, η²p = 0.239.

Discussion/Conclusion: Orienting the head and eyes to relevant information sources is crucial in football decision-making. These findings demonstrate that distance manipulation influences visual behavior and decision-making processes in dynamic sports situations. The gaze patterns observed between the monitoring and execution phases suggest phase-specific visual strategies. Furthermore, while larger distances facilitate more accurate decisions, they do not impact timing performance, indicating a dissociation between spatial and temporal aspects of performance.