Perceplrral and Motor Skills, 2001, 92, 786-794.

O Perceptual and Motor Skills 2001

CENTRAL AND PERIPHERAL VISUAL REACTION TIME

O F SOCCER PLAYERS AND NONATHLETES '

SOICHI ANDO, NORIYUKI KIDA, AND SHINGO ODA

Surn~nary.-Visual Reaction Time (RT) was measured by presenting three differ-

ent sizes of su~nulusto the central and peripheral fields of vision in 6 soccer players
and 6 nonathletes. An electromyogram was recorded from the flexor digitorum super-
ficialis muscle of the responding forearm. Peripheral visual RT was longer in compari-
son to central visual RT due to an increment in Premotor Time. The soccer players
showed shorter Premotor Times during central and peripheral visual RT tasks than
nonachletes, suggesting that the soccer players are better able to respond quickly to a
stimulus presented to peripheral as well as cenrral positions.

We have a tendency to rely upon vision as a source of sensory informa-

tion (Magd, 1999). It is probable that vision is related to performance in
ball sports. Ln ball sports such as soccer, for example, in defensive situations
players must pay attention not only to a moving ball but also to other play-
ers in their visual fields during a game or daily training. A visual field is com-
posed of central and peripheral components. Soccer players are required to
make a quick decision and start to move as fast as possible on a basis of
peripheral as well as central visual information. Therefore, soccer players are
required to have good peripheral visual perception.
The abhty to detect or recognize a visual stimulus can be analyzed by
measuring reaction time (RT). It is known that peripheral visual RT may in-
crease, in comparison to central RT, when the visual angle is increased ( 0 s -
terberg, 1935; Rains, 1963; Berlucchi, Heron, Hyman, Rizzolatti, & Umilta,
1971; Borkenhagen, 1974; Osaka, 1976; Arkm & Yehuda, 1985). However,
there are few studies investigating the peripheral visual RT for athletes in-
volved in ball sports and in nonathletes. The visual demands on soccer play-
ers makes it tempting to suggest that soccer players may have inherited or
developed superior peripheral perceptual abilities to nonathletes.
The aim of the present study was to investigate whether soccer players
have desirably high peripheral perception using RT measures. Soccer players
must track moving balls and other players in their visual fields at different
distances, indicating that soccer players must respond to objects of diverse
size. For that reason, we used three different sizes of stimuli to clarky to
what extent the RT differed benveen soccer players and nonathletes mea-

'Please address correspondence to Shingo Oda, Laboratory of Hum.~n Motor Control, Faculty
of lntegrated Human Studies, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606 .l.~panor e-mail (oda@
life.h.kyoto-u.ac.jp).
 RT OF SOCCER PLAYERS 787

sured in response to different sizes of s t i m d . The three stimulus sizes used

in the present experiment are considered to correspond to perceived ball
sizes on a playing field.
Posner, Snyder, and Davidson (1980) have reported that RT to extrafo-
veal peripheral stimulus was shorter at expected positions and longer at un-
expected positions. In a game or daily training of ball sports, players are re-
quired to respond to the unexpected direction. Therefore, we measured pe-
ripheral RT randomly presented in near or far peripheral positions to clarify
whether soccer players show quicker response than nonathletes to the stimu-
lus presented in the unexpected peripheral positions.
RT may be fractionated into premotor and motor components based
upon the dkference between the start of electromyogram (EMG) and onset
of movement (Weiss, 1965). To the authors' knowledge, no report has been
published which measured EMG onset, i.e., Prernotor time, during periph-
eral visual RT tasks. In the present study, central and peripheral RT mea-
sures were fractionated into Premotor Time and Motor Time, corresponding
to the nervous system's processing time and muscle contraction time, respec-
tively.

Subjects
Six male university soccer players and six university students (2 women
and 4 men) volunteered to take part in this study. University soccer players
(M age = 21.5 yr., SD = 1.4) had an average of 9.3 yr. (SD= 0.8) of experience
in playing soccer. All of them were intermediate soccer players (not experts).
University students ( M age = 22.8 yr., SD = 0.8) had no experience of soccer
or other ball sports training. ALI subjects reported normal visual acuity either
unaided or while wearing their own corrective lenses. The subjects were con-
sidered right-handed as all wrote with the right hand.
Apparatus
A computer (NEC PC98211 was used to control visual stimulus presen-
tation and record RT on each trial. A visual stimulus was presented on a
computer screen. AU visual conditions were conducted using binocular vi-
sion. The subject's head rested on a head chin rest 30 crn away from the
computer screen (3 cd/m2) so the eyes were directly in front of and level with
the position of the fixation point. The exposure duration of visual stimuli
was programmed at 50 msec. Four intertrial intervals (2, 3, 4, and 5 sec.)
were randomly used. They were also served as the fore-periods. The subjects
responded to the onset of each stimulus by depressing the space key of the
computer as fast as possible. The response key was manipulated using the
index finger of the right hand.
788 S. ANDO, ET AL.

Procedure
The experiment was carried out in the following four conditions: (I)
central RT, (11) peripheral simple RT in near position, (111) peripheral sim-
ple RT in far position, and (IV)peripheral RT randomly presented in near
or far position. The stimulus in all conditions was in the shape of a ring (14
cd/m2).The size of the stimulus was varied as follows: large size 8 mm in dl-
arneter (1.52" in central vision), medium size 4 mm (0.76"), or small size 2
mm (0.38").
In the Central condition, the stimulus was presented at the fixation
point. The stimulus in the Near Peripheral position was presented at an an-
gle of 10" to the right from the midpoint of a subject's eyes. The stimulus in
the Far Peripheral position was presented at an angle of 30" to the right
from the midpoint of the subjects' eyes. In the Random Peripheral condtion,
the stimulus was randomly presented at either Near or Far Peripheral posi-
tion. Ln all the peripheral condttions, the fixation point remained durninated
throughout the experiments. The subjects were instructed to fixate their eyes
on the fixation point all the time.
Experimental conditions of (I), (II), and (111) comprised 20 trials for
each size. The Random Peripheral condition (IV)comprised 40 trials for
each size; 20 trials were randomly performed at each position. Each session
consisted of a combination of four experimental conditions and three sizes
(12 sessions) intermixed in a randomized order. In each session, the stimulus
size and condition were constant all the time. Before the experiments, the
subject was visually familiarized with the stirnuh and given 10 practice trials
in each of 12 sessions.
The electr~m~ogram (EMG) was recorded from the flexor Agitorum
superficiaLs muscle of the responding forearm. RT was fractionated into
Premotor Time and Motor Time. Premotor Time was the time from stimu-
lus onset to the appearance of the muscle action potential. Motor Time was
the duration from muscle EMG to the key-press response (Weiss, 1965).
Ln additional experiments horizontal components of eye movement
were measured by an infrared reflection system (T.K.K. 2930a Takei Scien-
tific Instruments Co., Ltd., Japan) from four subjects (two soccer players
and two nonathletes), showing that they could hold their eyes on the fixa-
tion point during each experimental condition.
Statistical Analyses
Separate three-way mixed-design analysis of variance was used on the
RT, Premotor Time, and Motor Time with group and size as the benveen-
group factors, and condition as the within-group factor. Differences with a
probability level of < .05 were designated as significant.
 RT O F SOCCER PLAYERS 789

Reaction Time
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the RT. A three-
way analysis of variance on RT yielded significant main effects of size of the
stimulus and condition (F,,, = 4.43, p < .05 and F4,,,,=85.53, p < .001, respec-
tively). There were no significant main effects of group and no significant
interactions. As no difference was shown in RT between both groups, we
combined the RTs of both groups.

TABLE 1
REACTION
TIMES(MSEC.)O F SOCCERPLAYERSA N D NONATHLETES
BY CONDITION A N D SIZEO F STIMULUS

Stimulus Group Condition

Size Cenrral Simple Simple Random Random
Visual Near Far Near Far
Large Soccer Players
M 243 242 255 260 268
SD 7.31 6.77 7.81 7.39 3.83
Nonathletes
M 246 250 260 265 274
SD 15.63 10.4 1 10.30 14.30 14.37
Medium Soccer Players
M 252 251 258 262 270
SD 14.78 12.39 5.75 11.90 5.95
Nonathleres
M 252 266 270 269 272
SD 13.81 8.57 13.05 13.27 12.73
Small Soccer Players
M 249 256 268 268 279
SD 7.03 4.54 8.89 11.58 7.28
Nonathletes
M 260 266 273 274 286
SD 14.25 1 8 SS 14.01 11.46 12 l l

One-way analysis of variance with conditions as between-factor showed

significant main effects of the condition for the large size (F,,59=14.15, p <
.001), for the medium size (F4,,=6.32, p < .001), and for the small size (F,,5,
= 9.85, p < .001).
Premotor Time
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of the Premotor
Time. A three-way analysis of variance on Premotor Time gave significant
main effects for group, size of the stimulus, and condition (F,,,= 13.45, p <
.01; F,,,= 6.89, p < .01; and F,,, = 273.43, p < .001, respectively). There were
no significant interactions. The Premotor Times for the soccer players were
790 S. ANDO, ET AL.

shorter than those for the nonathletes. Further analyses for the soccer play-
ers and for the nonathletes were ~erformedseparately.
A two-way analysis of variance was used on the Premotor Time of each
group with size as the between factor and condition as the within factor.
There was a significant main effect of the size of the stimulus for the soccer
players (F,,,,=4.84, p < .05), while there was no significant main effect of the
size of the stimulus for the nonathletes.
TABLE 2
PREMOTOR
TIMES(MSEC.)O F SOCCERPLAYERS A N D NONATHLETES
HY CONDITION A N D SIZEO F STIMULUS

Stimulus Group - Condition

Size Central Simple Simple Random Random
Visual Near Far Near Far
Large Soccer Players
M 167 168 182 185 192
SD 6.98 5.37 8.57 5.34 5.96
Nonathletes
M 175 177 190 191 198
SD 10.91 10.03 8.02 9.42 7.36
Medium Soccer Players
M 173 178 183 187 196
SD 11.02 11 90 6.56 11.02 5.04
Nonathletes
M 180 184 196 197 2 02
SD 8.33 4.22 8.04 8.88 6.95
Small Soccer Players
M 173 182 190 191 206
SD 4.75 5.01 6.44 8.45 5.73
Nonathletes
M 183 190 198 200 209
SD 6.77 13.52 7.57 8.72 7.97

A one-way analysis of variance was used for each group and for each
size of the stimulus with condition as the between factor. For the Premotor
time of the soccer players, there were significant main effects of the condi-
tion for the large size (F,,,,= 16.53, p<.001), for the medium size (F4,,=
4.33, p < .01), and for the small size (F,,, =23.51, p< ,001). For the Prernotor
Time of the nonathletes, there were significant main effects of the condition
for the large size (F4,*,=6.52, p < .01), for the medium size (F,,,, =9.19, p <
.001), and for the small size (F4,,=7.01, p < .01).
Motor Time
Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations of the Motor Time. A
three-way analysis of variance on Motor Time yielded no significant main ef-
fects for group, size of the stimulus, and condition. There were no signifi-
cant interactions.
 RT O F SOCCER PLAYERS 791

TABLE 3
MOTORTIMES(MSEC.)OF SOCCERPLAYERSA N D NONATHLETES
B V C O N D ~ T ~AO
NDNSIZEOF STIMULUS

Stimulus Group Condition

Size Central Simple Simple Random Random
Visual Near Far Near Far
Large Soccer Players
M 77
SD 4.03
Nonathletes
M 71
SD 10.07
Medium Soccer Players
M 79
SD 6.41
Nonarhletes
M 72
SD 7.92
Small Soccer Players
M 76
SD 4.94
Nonarhletes
M 77
SD 9.33

Drscussro~
Many investigators have examined factors related to visual perception in
peripheral vision such as visual resolution (Kerr, 1971), visual angle, and ap-
parent size of objects (Newsome, 1972), area-intensity interaction (Dwyer &
White, 1974), target size and luminance in apparent brightness (Osaka,
1975), and information-processing speed (Williams, 1984). RT has been mea-
sured in central and ~ e r i ~ h e rvisual
al fields, and the differences in RT to the
stimulus presented to the fovea and periphery can be explained in terms of
relative decrease of cone density function (msterberg, 1935). Since that semi-
nal work, many researchers have shown that RT to centrally located stimulus
is faster than to peripherally located stimulus (Rains, 1963; Berlucchi, et al.,
1971; Borkenhagen, 1974; Osaka, 1976; Arkin & Yehuda, 1985).
The present study showed that the longer peripheral visual RT com-
pared to the central one was preceded by an increased Premotor Time. Pre-
motor Time is time needed to organize centrally, translate, and chamel the
appropriate commands to the musculature responsible for initiating the de-
sired response (Fischrnan, 1984). That the RTs found in the Peripheral con-
ditions were longer than those in the Central condition is considered to re-
flect a longer premotor process.
In the present study, no differences were shown in RTs in central and
792 S. ANDO, ET AL.

peripheral visual fields benveen groups. However, Premotor Times of soccer

players were significantly shorter than those of nonathletes. It has been
widely assumed that Premotor Time is a more valid indicator of program-
ming time than RT (Weiss, 1965; Botwinick & Thompson, 1966; Fischman,
1984). This suggests that soccer players have higher perceptual abilities to
respond quickly m peripheral as well as central visual fields. It can be specu-
lated that soccer players might have inherited the peripheral perceptual
abhties to respond quickly or developed higher abhties than nonathletes.
Helsen and Starkes (1999) reported that no dkferences were shown in
central and peripheral RTs benveen expert and intermedate soccer players.
This seems to be inconsistent with our result. However, there are two dffer-
ences between the work of Helsen and Scarkes and the present study: (1)
peripheral visual angle used was different from those in our experiment, (2)
the study by Helsen and Starkes was aimed to compare the differences be-
tween experts and intermedate soccer players, while our study was aimed to
compare the difference between intermediate university soccer players (not
experts) and nonathletes who have no experience in ball sports. i t is, there-
fore, considered that the result by Helsen and Starkes cannot be directly
compared with the result of the present study.
Starkes (1987) reported that the expert sports ~erformer'svisual advan-
tage is not related to the physical structure of their visual system but rather
to how they pick-up, process, and utilize the visual information specific to
their domain of expertise to guide their actions. Basic visual functioning is
not the limiting factor to sports performance (Abernethy & Neal, 1999).
Moreover, accounts of successful athletes with inferior vision have been re-
ported (Starkes, 1984; Helsen & Starkes, 1999; W d ~ a m s ,Davids, & Wil-
liams, 1999). The shorter premotor time for the soccer players in the present
study may not directly predict slulled sports performance.
Reaction Time decreases as a function of increasing target size (Ed-
wards & Goolkasian, 1974; Osaka, 1976). In the present study, the RTs and
Premotor Times for both groups decreased with increasing stimulus size.
This is consistent with the above previous studies. The analyses for the Pre-
motor Times gave a significant main effect of the size of the stimulus for the
soccer players, while chere was no significant main effect of the size of the
stimulus for the nonathletes. In the present study, the small sample might
~ r o v i d elow power to detect a significant main effect of the size of the stim-
ulus for the nonathletes.
The experienced soccer players have demonstrated superior anticipatory
~erformanceto that of inexperienced players (Williams, Davids, Bunvitz, &
WAams, 1994). Soccer players acquire dn extensive soccer-specific knowl-
edge base that enables them to recogn~zemeaningful associations between
the positions and movements of players in game situations (Williams, Da-
 RT O F SOCCER PLAYERS 7 93

vids, Bunvitz, & Williams, 1993). Elite volleyball and basketball athletes
were more efficient in prelcting offensive games (Kioumourtzoglou, Kour-
tessis, Michalopoulou, & Derri, 1998). In the Random Peripheral conditions
of the present study, anticipation and soccer-specific knowledge base were
not required. Therefore, there were no evident differences for the effect of
condition between soccer players and nonathletes.
In conclusion, peripheral visual RT was longer than central visual RT
given an increment in the prernotor time. Soccer players showed shorter Pre-
motor Times than nonathletes, suggesting that soccer players have quicker
perceptual response in peripheral and central visual fields.
REFERENCES
ABERNETHY, B., & N w L , R. 1. (1999) Visual characteristics of clay rJrgcr shooters. Journal of
Science and Medicine in Sports, 2, 1-19.
ARKIN.N., &YEHUDA, S. (1985) The involvement of the two hemis heres m the reaction time
to central and peripheral visual stimuli. International Jotirrral oP~et,rosrience,25, 233-236.
BERLUCCHI, G., HERON,W., HYMAN,R., R I Z Z O ~ G., I , & UMILTA, C. (1971) Simple reaction
times of ipsilateral and contralateral hand to lateralized visual stimuli. Brain, 94, 419-430.
B O R K E N ~ G J.
E NM.
, (1974) Rotary acceleration of a subject inhibits choice reaction time to
motion in peripheral vision. lotirnal of Experirnerrtal Psychology, 102, 484-487.
B O ~ N I C 1..
K ,&THOMPSON, L. W. (1966) Premotor and motor components of reaction time.
lournal of Experimental Psycl~olog~. 71, 9-15.
D\WER,W. O., &WHITE,C. S. (1974) Peripheral area-intensity interaction in simple visual re-
action time. Vision Research, 14, 971-974.
EDWARDS, D. C., &GOOLK/CFIAN, l? A. (1974) Peripheral vision location and kinds of complex
processing. Journal of Experirnerrtal Psychology, 102, 244-249.
FISCHMAN, M. G. (1984) Programming time as a function of number of movement parts and
changes in movement direction. Journal ofMotor Behavior, 16, 405-423.
HELSEN,W. F., &STARKES, J. L. (1999) A multidimensional approach to skilled perception and
performance in sport. Applied Cognilive Psychology, 13, 1-27.
KERR, J . L. (1971) Visual resolution in the periphery. Perceptton & Psychophysics, 9, 375-378.
KIOUMOURTZOGLOU, E., KOURTESSIS, 1,MICHALOPOULOU, M., & DERRI,V. (1998) Differences in
several perceptual abilities benveen experts and novices in basketball, volleyball and wa-
ter-polo. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 899-912.
GILL, R. (1999) Motor learning: concepts and applicafiorrs. (5th ed.) Dubuque, IA:Brown &
Benchmark.
NEWSOME, L. R. (1972) Visual angle and apparent size of objects in peripheral vision. Percep-
tion & Psychophysics, 12, 300-304.
OSAKA,N. (1975) Target size and luminance in apparent brightness of the peripheral visual
field. Perceptzial and Mofor Skills, 41, 49-50.
OSAKA,N. (1976) Reaction time as a function of peripheral retinal locus around fovea: effect
of stimulus size. Perceptztal and Motor Skills, 43, 603-606.
OSCERBERC, G. (1935) Topography of the layer of rods and cones in the human retina. Acla
Ophthalmologica, 6(Suppl.), 1-102.
POSNER, M. I., SNYDER, C. R. R., & DAVIDSON, B. 1. (1980) Attention and the detection of sig-
nals. Journal of Experimen~alPsychologv General, 109, 160-174.
RAINS, 1. D. (1963) Signal luminance and position effects in human reaction time. Vision Re-
search, 3, 239-251.
STARKES, J. L. (1984) Perception in sport: a cognitive approach to skilled performance. In W.
F. Straub & J. M. Williams (Eds.), Cogrritive sport psychology. Lansing, NY: Sport Sci-
ence Associates. Pp. 115-128.
STARKES, J. L. (1987) Slc~llin field hockey: the nature of the cognitive advantage. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 9, 146-160.
7 94 S. ANDO, ET AL.

WEISS,A. 0. (1965) The locus of reaction time change with set, motivation, and age. Journal
of Gerontologv, 20, 60.64.
WILLIAMS,A. M., DAVIDS, K., BURWITZ, L., &WILLIAMS. J. G. (1993) Cognitive knowledge and
soccer performance. Perceptual and Mofor Skills, 76, 579-593.
WILLIAMS.A. M.. DAVIDS, K.. BURWTZ, L., & WILLUUS, J. G. (1994) Visual search strategies in
experienced and inexperienced soccer players. Research Quarferly for Exercise and Sport,
65, 127-135.
WILLIAMS,A. M., DAVIDS,K., & WILLLAUS, 1. G. (1999) Visz~alperception and acfioii in sport.
London: E&FN Spon.
WILLIAMS,L. J. (1984) Information processing in near peripheral vision. Journal of General
Psychology, 111, 201-207.

Accepted April 17, 200 1