perception training

[ricefield]

i just finished reading a great article in WIRED mag. it talks about how researchers are finding ways to train "perception" in athletics. unlike athleticism, which comes down to fitness and strength (which are commonly trained aspects), "perception" is considered more of an innate talent.

the perception they refer to mainly has to do w/ court sense and prediction. they refer to the example of wayne gretzky who could, at times, (seemingly)magically sense the location of his teammates and make brilliant passes. the same is said of NBA player steve nash. it also talks about the ability of expert tennis players to accurately predict the direction/angle of a serve just by watching the way server's arm is cocked.

here is the link to the article, in case you're interested:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/15-06/ff_mindgames

my point is this:
does anyone have any idea how to do this kind of training for badminton? im still only a novice-level player, but some of my opponents have commented on my ability to read their shots (as well as the ease w/ which they read mine.. haha). im not sure how its done, and i dont know if its all that effective, but i was wondering if anyone else here @ BC had any input/reflections on the whole "perception training" thing.

[Kimmysolucious]

I think this is still being discussed: http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8057&page=2

Most players would probably agree that experience is the key: the more you play, the easier it is to develop certain innate abilities. You might not be able to develop this ability quickly as a novice player. Of course, there are key indications but until you get the hands-on experience, it would be futile without experience on the court. (sort of like learning how to ride the bicycle: I can tell you where to put your hands, how to push your feet, how to balance on a bike but only through experience you can learn how to ride it successfully).

This is probably not the kind of answer you were looking for but still, best of wishes to you. :)

[stumblingfeet]

It's funny with these articles - they talk about this stuff as if it has been stuff coaches have completely neglected all these years. Now, some new thing is going to "revolutionize" training methods.

The truth is, the very good coaches out there probably already integrate stuff like this into their game drills. In which case, it probably works better than most fancy training tools stupid trainers come up with. Now, for some sports the dominant team might employ certain training methods which are copied (poorly) by other teams. Or they may overuse some drills which may eventually lead to a relative deficiency in some other skill. What's important is that you be aware of what skills you want to develop, and think critically about whether the drills you use address the skills you want to develop.

[SystemicAnomaly]

I've noticed that since I started coaching tennis (& a bit of badminton), my perception had improved remarkably. In trying to detect & fix flaws in stroke mechanics for students, I've developed a much keener eye -- I can read opponents and situations much better than in my pre-coaching days.

Another thing that has helped immensely has been vision training and cognitive training. MBT (below) is low-cost suite that combines both of these using primarily ECT (elementary cognitive tasks) exercises. They focus on simple & complex choice exercises. The exercises put a premium on RT (reaction time), peripheral awareness, vigilance and other athletic/cognitive concerns.

http://www.mybraintrainer.com

More than 2/3 of the ECT exercises at this site are applicable for sports such as tennis & badminton. In my next post, I will talk about some other sources of such training.

[stumblingfeet]

The question is: do these general training methods really improve performance in real-world, complex tasks? Of course, performance could very well improve just because you think you should improve, but the placebo effect could be achieved without shelling out any money for some dubious training device.

[SystemicAnomaly]

The question is: do these general training methods really improve performance in real-world, complex tasks? Of course, performance could very well improve just because you think you should improve, but the placebo effect could be achieved without shelling out any money for some dubious training device.

The types of exercises that I suggested, sports vision training and ECTs, are analagous to going into a workout gym to work on flexibility, muscle strength, power (speed strength), etc. Those types of body exercises, by themselves, can provide some benefit to the athlete. However, their real utility comes with incorporating them in a larger training regimen -- one that includes sport-specific drills, actual play, nutrition, cross-training, proper rest/sleep habits, sports psychology, etc.

The vision training and ECTs are adjunct training tools often employed by university athletes, professional teams and pro athletes. Visual tracking skills, both smooth pursuit & saccadic tracking, is very important in most sports. This is just one example of the type visual-cognitve skill that is honed by these alternate training tools.

Yes, ongoing sports vision training, performed under the guidasnce of a behavioral optometrist, can be a bit expensive unless the tab is picked up by the university or pro team that the athlete is on.

On the other hand, software training exercises, such as the ECTs that I mentioned are very reasonably priced -- sometimes even dirt cheap. for example, the MBT site that I mentioned in post #4 costs a mere $2.50 (US) per month (or less than $10 for 4 months). With a cost this low, it can hardly be considered a financial risk.

Other visual-cognitive training packages to consider are EyeQ, BrainBuilder, and Happy Neuron. Altho' these all have some exercises benficial to athletic concerns, it is not really their primary focus. EyeQ is intended primarily for speed reading while the other two dwell more on memory improvement than on visual skills.

The closest training tools to the MBT exercises would be some of the exercises from Cognitive Labs (more about these later) and ThinkFast (which is nearly impossible to find any longer).

Note that these types of exercises, by themselves, would be only part of a plan to facilitate the "perception" of which ricefield speaks. The other suggestions by myself (such as coaching) & others could certainly help in this endeavor. I will mention another method in my next post.

[SystemicAnomaly]

Perception Exercise: From the sidelines, watch other ppl playing games or matches. You can do this exercise with players of various levels -- however it might be easiest with intermediate level players.

As you watch someone play for a while, try to determine what they will do for each shot. As they move into position to intercept a shuttle, try to figure out what all their options (possible choices) appear to be for that particular situation. Just before they make contact with the shuttle, try to determine, as soon as possible, their choice -- which of those options they have selected to execute. The more you practice this exercise, the better you will get at it. In this manner you can develop your "perception".

If an accomplished player moves toward the shuttle quickly and their postion (body position & racket position) is good, they will have a lot of options. However, if a player get to the shuttle late or their body/racket postion is poor, they will have a few options. Low level players will usually have limited options for most situations. A high level player, playing against a weaker opponent, will have a myriad of options for most situations. They will move & play to maximize their own options while minimizing their opponent's options.

See if you can see this in players of various levels. A player's postion with respect to the shuttle and the position of their racket for each situation will tell you a lot about a players options.

As you watch a player for a while, see if you can pick up on their tendencies. Do they almost always go crosscourt for a particular situation? If the shuttle goes deep to their BH, do they usually try hit a straight drop if their postion is less than ideal? Picking up on tendencies is a great skill to develop, especially the tendencies of ppl that you compete against.

Look for "tells" -- does a player's arm position, body language, or racket movement tip off what they are going to do? Do they telegraph some of their shots? Do they have a particular quirk or deviant action when they are about to hit an overhead drop?

Trying to "read" beginners might be a special challenge since their strokes are often immature, incinsistent or spastic. Quite often a beginner has almost no idea where their shots are going -- this can make it particularly difficult to "read" their shots. Try it anyway -- with advanced beginners, determine their options & try to determine their choices (before they execute it).

Advanced players can also be quite a challenge. They often have many options and their deceptions are so good that their choice are not very predictable is many/most cases. If 2 high level players of equal ability are playing, try to determine their all options for each situation. Predicting their shot selection will undoubtedly much more difficult -- but not neccessarily impossible.

[stumblingfeet]

Of course I appreciate the importance of perception skills in sports. I also understand that these companies are attempting to target these skills. The issue here is whether these skills are actually developed in such a way that in-game performance of these skills is improved.

There are many differences between tracking objects in real life and tracking them on a computer screen. For example, in 3D your eyes have to dynamically focus but on a computer screen your focus length is constant. Any perception of 3D is a mental trick – your lenses don’t have to change.

How far do you sit from your screen? How big is this screen? The screen space used for the training is always a subset of your total viewing space – does it cover all that you need?

Think about a typical game situation. Let’s say you go up for a smash, and you need to figure out where to place it. You look at their distance from the net, to determine whether to smash high, smash low, maybe slice. You see their position, seeing if it leaves any areas especially vulnerable. You consider your recent pattern of shots, to figure out what might be least expected from a mental point of view. Of course, you don’t actually think of this stuff, that’d be too slow. Instead you just do them all automatically.

The above are all pretty complex skills. Can they really be modeled with a computer program? If not, can simple representations on a screen actually improve the complex skills? It’s the principle of specificity – the less similar it is to a given task, the less beneficial the training task will be.

An analogy is the strength training industry. From my experience of using commercial gyms, most people (over 80%) don’t know how to train. Sure, they may read magazines with workout guides, but generally they’re going through the motions of working out and not getting the full benefit of training. Even most personal trainers out there suffer from this problem as well. There are many, many companies out there targeting these people. They bring out some new product, say it targets ‘so-and-so’ and maybe gives a weak study correlating ‘so-and-so’ with positive performance changes. These things tend to be more gimmick than substance.

Real training tends to be a bit less exciting – not so much focus on the training tools themselves, but rather on clever use of conventional training tools.

[colekwok]

I think I have seen one BBC programme in the UK, they have tested several elite atheletes in different type of sports, scientifically. Sports perception is a very general terms. In fact, some attributes can be trained, but some are natural. That is why there are the so-called natural talents. The thing is, even with intensive training, it is still quite impossible to go over your physical limit, say, you reaction time, your eyesight etc etc. Modern coaches can maximise your ability with the latest training routines and equipment, but you cannot make me play like Taufik or Lin Dan. even if I have similar training.

In the BBC programme, what they tested was bascially how wide is our forward vision, how well you can balance yourself, the reation time, the ability to predict what is going to happen etc. What they have found out is that, good players all have superior attributes to these basic tests. Otherwise, if everyone can be as good, that what is the point of having competitions!?

[Eurasian =--(O)]

this is how my coach explains his ability to anticipate (he won a bronze medal at the olympics, was WC...)
Its basically picking up on patterns and shifting your weight but having in your mind to go another direction. so for example, you return a smash to the net, you are leaning backwards but in your mind you are thinking rush the net. This way you are ready for two shots. Also Lee Jae Bok's video on court coverage is excellent way of anticipating shots.
The feeling of jumping on your opponents shot before they hit it at a high level is amazing. Its like your already in the air in perfect position with 0 effort before you've had time to react. I can't do it consistently but there are certain patterns almost everyone has, and when you start learning and memorizing them its a great feeling. When you get the early jump on whatever shot it puts your opponent under huge pressure and you basically dictate the pace of the rally.

Like systemic was talking about vision is absolutely key.