Eye–head coordination during rapid gaze shifts in soccer scanning


Abstract

Background. The visual exploratory behavior involving rapid gaze shifts that supports cognitive processes is called “scanning.” Scanning in soccer is a foundational behavior that enables players to explore their environment, supporting rapid and accurate situational judgments. However, since most previous studies have focused on head movements, the eye-head coordination underlying gaze shifts is insufficiently understood. This study aimed to determine the coordinated roles of eye and head movements during scanning.
Methods. Twenty male collegiate soccer players performed a passing task paired with video-based situational judgments while eye and head movements were recorded using an eye tracker system with a built-in gyroscope. We detected eye and head velocities and amplitudes during rapid gaze shifts.
Results. As a result, peak eye velocity was significantly larger than peak head velocity (d = 4.09, p < .001). The cross-correlation (CC) between gaze and eye velocities (0.92) was significantly greater than that between gaze and head velocities (0.58). Furthermore, head contribution increased with larger gaze-shift amplitudes and under higher temporal constraints. These results indicate that gaze shifts were primarily driven by eye movements, while head movements provide task-dependent adjustments to the overall gaze behavior. In addition, eye and head velocities were negatively correlated (r = − .60, p = .005), indicating individual strategy-dependent allocation of effort.
Conclusion. Our findings suggest that eye movements serve as the primary effector, providing precise and stable control of gaze shifts in the practical context of soccer scanning . Furthermore, the head could contribute in a complementary and adaptive manner, increasing its involvement in response to movement demands or situational constraints .
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].