Soccer players’ ability to use peripheral vision is affected by viewing angles but not crowding

Abstract

Introduction: Peripheral vision plays a key role in monitoring multiple players in team sports (Vater et al., 2020; Vater, 2024). In soccer, highly skilled players anchor their gaze on the player in possession while using peripheral vision to monitor surrounding movements in 3 vs. 3 situations (Vater et al., 2019). This study examined how peripheral vision is challenged in a counter-attack scenario by varying the viewing angle between a defender’s direct opponent and a wing striker. We also manipulated crowding, a factor known to limit peripheral perception (Herzog & Sayim, 2022). We predicted that larger viewing angles and higher crowding would impair overrun detection.

Methods: Twenty-two participants (M_age = 20.81 years, SD = 1.81, n_female = 10) with at least 5 years of experience as central defenders or midfielders viewed 3 vs. 3 virtual-reality soccer counterattacks from a central-defender perspective. Their task was to detect when a wing striker overran his defender—on the right, left, or both sides—and indicate this with a hand response. Detection performance served as a measure of peripheral-vision use. Participants simultaneously defended their direct opponent, who could shoot or pass to either striker. A within-subjects 3 (Eccentricity: 20°, 40°, 60°) × 3 (Crowding: 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 Bouma) design was used. Dependent variables included overrun-detection accuracy and response time as well as peripheral detection. Body kinematics were captured with a 14-camera Optitrack system; gaze was recorded with a Pupil Labs Core eye tracker at 120 Hz. Normality and homogeneity were tested for each dependent measure. Parametric tests were used when assumptions were met; otherwise, the Kruskal-Wallis H test was applied. Bonferroni corrections were used for post hoc tests. Effect sizes were reported as η² or ε², with Cohen’s d for pairwise comparisons.

Results: Eccentricity significantly affected overrun-detection accuracy, H(2) = 29.21, p < .001, η² = 0.257. Accuracy was higher at 20° (M = 82.24%) and 40° (M = 83.29%) than at 60° (M = 71.69%), both p < .001. Response times also showed a main effect of eccentricity, H(2) = 29.23, p < .001, η² = 0.446, with faster responses at 20° than 40° or 60°, and at 40° than 60°. Peripheral detection showed the same pattern: H(2) = 23.20, p < .001, η² = 0.372; participants relied more on peripheral vision at 40° and 60° than at 20°. No effects of crowding were found for any measure (all p > .30).

Discussion/Conclusion: Viewing angle strongly influences performance in this sport-specific overrun-detection task, with larger eccentricities reducing accuracy and slowing responses. Although participants used peripheral vision frequently at 40° and 60°, their reduced accuracy and slower responses at 60° suggest that initiating a saccade to peripheral locations may be beneficial (Vater et al., 2020). Contrary to expectations, crowding did not affect performance, possibly because we used sport-specific dynamic rather than artificial, static stimuli or because participants were not restricted to only using peripheral vision.

References

Herzog, M. H., & Sayim, B. (2022). Crowding: Recent advances and perspectives. Journal of Vision, 22(12), 15. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.22.12.15

Vater, C. (2024). Viewing angle, skill level and task representativeness affect response times in basketball defence. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 3337. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53706-9

Vater, C., Williams, A. M., & Hossner, E.-J. (2020). What do we see out of the corner of our eye? The role of visual pivots and gaze anchors in sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2019.1582082      

Vater, C., Luginbühl, S. P., & Magnaguagno, L. (2019). Testing the functionality of peripheral vision in a mixed-methods football field study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 37(24), 2789-2797. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1664100