| Vickers (1992) |
SK, PER |
Tournament players: LH (n = 5) and HH (n = 7) |
Distance: 3 m
10 hits and 10 misses compared
|
Location: ball
Duration*:
Preparation: LH 1,442 (msec), HH 926
Swing: LH 1,788, HH 911
|
Skill-level differences in performance:
LH > HH
|
| Naito et al. (2004) |
SK |
Expert golfers (handicap = 0, n = 3), intermediate golfers (handicap = 2-15, n = 3), and beginners (rarely play, n = 11) |
Distance: 2 m
10 putts performed
|
NA |
Fixation duration on ball:
Beginners > experts
Fixation duration on club head:
Experts > beginners, intermediates
Right before ball impact:
Experts shifted gaze to 4 cm from the ball in the direction of the hole
Possible use of peripheral vision in experts compared to beginners and intermediates
In beginners: shifting gaze to direction of target at ball contact improved performance
|
| Binsch et al. (2009) |
PSY |
Undergraduate students (n = 27, 14 females)
No golfing experience
|
Distance: 1.8 m
Three instruction conditions: "hole" – make sure ball ends in the hole, "not-in-front" – make sure ball ends in the hole, be careful it does not end in front of hole, "not-past" – make sure ball ends in the hole, be careful it does not end past the hole
Three putts per condition under mental load (counting backwards)
|
NA |
Some participants showed ironic effects (gazing longer and hitting towards the place they were told to avoid), some showed overcompensation (gazing longer and hitting towards the location opposite the location they were told to avoid), and some showed good performance
Negative instructions (e.g., avoid hitting to this area) can affect gaze behavior and lead to either overcompensation or ironic effects
|
| Wilson & Pearcy (2009) |
PER, SL |
University team golfers (n = 6) |
Distance: 3 m
Five putts for each of 5 slopes: flat, .9° to both sides, 1.8° to both sides
|
Location: top or back of ball, putter head, or adjacent to ball
Duration:
Missed putts: 1,231
Holed putts: 1,693
|
Performance error between slopes:
1.8° slope > .9° slope > flat
Number of aiming fixations:
slope (7.94) > flat (5.93)
|
| van Lier et al. (2010) |
PER, SL |
Teaching golf professionals (mean handicap = 3.4, n = 20, 2 women) divided into a successful group and a less-successful group based on proportion of holed putts |
Distance: 1.8 m
Fifteen putts for each of 3 slope conditions: flat, 1%, 2% (right-to-left)
|
Location: ball and putter head
Duration##:
successful 1,100-1,300
Unsuccessful 1,500-2,100
No differences between groups, slopes, or between holed and missed putts
|
Number of holed putts:
Flat = 1% =2%
Effects of slope on gaze:
% time viewing ball and putter:
2% < 1%, flat
Increased slope – shift in gaze to the high side of hole
|
| Vine & Wilson (2010) |
QET, PER |
Male undergraduate students (n = 14)
No golfing experience
Two group: QE training,
technical training
|
Distance: 3.3 m
Blocks: 1 pre-test, 8 acquisition, 1 retention A,1 pressure test, 1 retention B
Forty putts per block
|
Location: ball
Retention A#:
QE: 3,200, Technical: 1,400
Pressure test#:
QE: 2,800, Technical: 900
Retention B#:
QE: 3,200, Technical: 1,300
QE of top 3 performers (3,561) > QE of bottom 3 performers (1,372)
|
Performance in pressure test:
Technical (reduced performance) < QE (maintained performance)
No other differences in performance between groups despite differences in QE
QE predicted 36% of the variance in putting performance
|
| Mann et al. (2011) |
SK, PER, PPOC |
LH (0-2, n = 10) and HH (10-12, n = 10) golfers |
Distance: 3.7 m
Ten practice putts
Two blocks of 45 putts
EEG measures (BP)
|
Location: not mentioned
Duration##:
LH > HH, hits = misses
|
Performance: LH > HH
BP negativity: LH > HH
BP negativity not related to performance
QEDs correlated with BP measures (r = .28-.30)
|
| Vine et al. (2011) |
PER, QET |
Golfers (mean handicap: 2.8, n = 22)
Two groups: QE training,
Control
|
Distance: 3.05 m
Putts taken from 3 locations
Recording 10 real competition rounds before and after lab training
In the lab: practice and baseline putts, 20 training putts
Retention and pressure tests
|
Location: ball
Duration:
in pressure test:
QE-trained: 2,794
Control: 1,404
No differences in pre-test or retention
|
Lab putting performance error (distance from hole) during retention and pressure tests:
Control > QE-trained
QED predicted 43% of variance of performance error
Competition performance:
Putts per round:
QE-trained < control
Post-training < pre-training in QE –trained group only
Percentage of holed putts from 1.8-3.05 m post-training:
QE-trained > control.
QE predicted 43% of the variance in putting performance
|
| Moore, Vine, Cooke et al. (2012) |
PER, QET |
Undergraduate students (n = 40) with no golfing experience
Two groups:
QE training, technical training
|
Distance: 3.05 m
Putts taken from 3 locations
baseline (40 putts), training (320 putts), retention 1 (20 putts), pressure (20 putts), retention 2 (20 putts)
|
Location: ball
Duration:
during retention tests:
QE (~3,400) > technical (~1,800)
Pressure test:
QE maintained duration, technical reduced duration
|
During retention and pressure:
% putts holed: QE (26-27%) > technical (17-20%)
Radial error: QE < technical
Putting kinematics:
Lateral and vertical club acceleration during downswing: QE < technical.
|
| Moore, Vine, Wilson et al. (2012) |
PSY |
Undergraduate students (n = 127, 63 females) with no golfing experience
Two groups: challenge,
threat
|
Distance: 1.83 m
Three different locations
Six putts
|
Location: ball
Duration:
challenge (1,527) > threat (1,195)
|
Radial error:
Challenge (~35) < threat (~47)
Putter kinematics:
Lateral, vertical, back-and-forth acceleration:
Challenge < threat
Muscle activity during foreswing:
Challenge < threat
QE did not mediate differences in performance between groups
|
| Moore, Vine et al. (2013) |
PER, QET |
Undergraduate students (n = 30) with no golfing experience
A subset from Moore, Vine, Cooke et al. (2012)
|
Same as Moore, Vine, Cooke et al. (2012) |
Location: ball
Duration:
Retention and pressure tests#:
QE-trained (~3,500) > technical (~1,700)
|
Mean performance error during retention and pressure tests:
QE-trained < technical
Appraisal of resources:
QE-trained > technical
Resource appraisal mediated relationship between training group and performance in pressure test
|
| Moore, Wilson et al. (2013; Study 2) |
PER, PSY |
Golfers (mean handicap: 10, n = 60)
Two groups: challenge,
Threat
|
Distance: 2.44 m
Half-sized hole (5 cm)
Six putts performed
|
Location: ball
Duration:
challenge (2,148) > threat (1,542)
|
Performance:
Holed putts: challenge > threat
Distance from hole: challenge < threat
Mediation analysis revealed no relationship between QE and performance
|
| Vine, Lee et al. (2013) |
PER, PPOC |
Golfers (mean handicap: 3.6, n = 50) |
Distance: 1.52 m
A shootout – holing as many consecutive putts without missing under pressure
Comparing first, penultimate, and final putts
|
Location: ball
QE-pre backswing, QE-online (from backswing to contact), QE-dwell (after contact)
Duration:
QE-total:
First (2,284), penultimate (2,205) > last (1,601)
QE-pre: ~1,000, no differences between putts.
QE-online:
First, penultimate (>800) > final (560)
QE-dwell:
First, penultimate (~400) > final (<100)
|
Longer QE-online and QE-dwell durations related to improved performance under pressure
QE pre-programming role questioned
|
| Vine, Moore et al. (2013) |
QET, PSY |
Undergraduate students (n = 45) with no golfing experience
Three groups:
Analogy training
Explicit training
QE training
|
Distance: 3.05 m
Putts taken from 3 locations
baseline (40 putts), training (320 putts), retention 1 (20 putts), pressure (20 putts), retention 2 (20 putts)
Explicit rule accrual and conscious processing measured
|
Location: ball
Duration:
In both retention and pressure#: QE (~3,500-3,700) > analogy, explicit (~1,600-1,800)
|
Mean radial error:
QE < analogy in retention
QE < analogy, explicit in retention and pressure
In pressure test:
Explicit showed reduced performance, analogy and QE maintained performance
Explicit rule accrual, conscious processing:
Explicit > analogy, QE
|
| Wood et al. (2013) |
PER, PSY |
No golfing experience (n = 40, 10 females) |
Distance: 1.75 m
Ebbinghaus Illusion Target with either smaller (perceived large) or larger circles (perceived small) surrounding hole
10 practice putts, 10 putts under for smaller circles, 10 putts for larger circles
|
Location: ball
Duration:
Perceived small (1,481) < perceived large (1,651)
|
Perceived hole size:
Perceived small < perceived large
Performance error:
Perceived small > perceived large
|
| Campbell & Moran (2014) |
SL |
Touring golf professionals (expert, n = 17), elite-amateurs (near-expert, n = 14), club-level amateurs (least-expert, n = 14) |
Computerized green-reading, slope perception task
Simulated views of green from 6 positions
Six sec view time allowed for each position
No limit to decision making after "tour" of green
Make decision on where to aim to hole a putt
|
NA |
Viewing time for all groups:
51.4% on target area, 34.8% on 60 cm leading up to target, 13.7% on ball
Mean number of fixations:
Professional, elite amateurs < club-level for 3 of 6 locations (~4 extra fixations)
Mean duration of fixations:
Professional, elite amateurs (~720-970) > club-level (550-640) for 2 of 6 locations
% correct verbal estimates of aim:
Professional (76.5%) > elite and club (57.1%) but not significant
|
| Fulton et al. (2014) |
PER, PSY |
Division-I collegiate golfers (n = 8) |
Distance: 5 m
Warmup (10 putts)
Low pressure (50 putts) and high pressure (50 putts) with random camera flash as a distraction during QE
|
Location: ball
Duration:
Visual distraction (1,789) > no distraction (1,458)
|
Worries / tense / confident feelings:
Low pressure = high pressure
Putting performance:
Visual distraction = no distraction
QE and performance moderately correlated (r = .48)
|
| Kloster-mann et al. (2014) |
SK, FA, PPOC |
Expert (n = 12, 4 females) and near-expert (n = 12, 5 females) golfers |
Distance: 3.0 m
Sixteen practice trails
Five practice trials and 16 actual trials in 2 counterbalanced conditions: internal and external focus of attention
|
Location: ball
Duration:
Experts (2,235) > near experts (1,564)
QE offset: experts (1,177) > near experts (634)
Larger differences under internal focus conditions
|
Performance: external > internal, experts > near experts
Late QE offsets related to improved performance in experts
Late QE offsets related to improved performance under internal focus of attention
|
| Panchuk et al. (2014) |
PER, QET |
Amateur golfers with various skill levels (handicap range = 1-41, n = 29)
Four groups:
Control, hole focus (look at hole for 2-3 sec, saccade to ball and swing immediately), marker focus (name color of marker under ball after it is hit), PBoS
|
Distance: pre-test and post-test 1.83 m, practice 1.22 and 2.44 m
Ten pre-test and post-test putts
Intervention: 15 putts from 1.22 m and 15 putts from 2.44 m
|
Location: ball
Duration:
From pre- to post-test:
Marker focus increased
Hole focus decreased
Hits (1,840) > misses (1,569)
QE dwell time (after contact): +247 in marker focus group
|
Performance similar between all four groups and between pre- and post-test |
| Ziv & Lidor (2015) |
FA |
Undergraduate students (n = 72) with no golfing experience
Three instructional groups: control, internal focus, external focus
Two audio distraction groups: distraction, no distraction
|
Distance: 2.0 m
One-hundred and twenty acquisition trials, 24 retention trials, 24 transfer trials
Repeat 24 retention and transfer trials under audio distraction or no distractions
|
Location: ball or putter head
Duration:
Acquisition, retention, transfer:
External (1,822-2,168) > control (1,214-1,286), internal (1,168-1,447)
|
Performance:
No distractions:
Control = internal = external
With audio distractions:
External, internal > control
QE was not related to improved performance
|
| Frank et al. (2016) |
PSY |
University students (n = 45, 27 females) with no golfing experience
Three training groups:
Physical practice, combined physical + mental (imagery) practice, no practice
|
Distance: 3.0 m
Pre-test(day 1), acquisition (3 days), post-test (day 5), retention test (day 8)
Combined group practiced mentally in addition to physically – practiced twice as much as physical only
|
Location: not mentioned
Duration#:
Pre-test, acquisition: equal for all groups (~900)
3-day retention:
Combined (~ 2,500) > no practice (~900), but only a tendency to statistical difference from physical only (~1,400)
QED increased in
|
Performance:
Post-test: combined > no practice
3-day retention: combined, physical > no practice
Mental representation structures in long-term memory:
Combined > no practice
QED related to mental representation structure (r = .29)
Both QE and mental representation developed over the course of practice, especially in combined practice
|
| Causer et al. (2017) |
PER, PPOC |
Undergraduate students (n = 21) with no golfing experience
A median split to create low-radial error (low-RE) and high-radial error (high-RE) groups
|
Distance: 1.83 & 3.35 m
Two conditions: full vision, occluded vision (from initiation of backswing to ball contact)
Twenty putts for each combination of distance and vision (80 putts total)
|
Location: ball
Total duration: Low-RE (1,183) > high-RE (844), occluded (1,095) > full vision (933)
Pre-programming duration (until backswing): Low-RE (860) > high-RE (621), occluded (962) > full vision (519)
Online duration (from backswing to contact): Low-RE (192) > high-RE (151), occluded (84) < full vision (295)
Dwell duration (after contact): Low-RE (130) > high-RE (71), occluded (17) < full vision (153)
|
Performance:
Differences between low-RE and high-RE were greater under occluded vision
Related to lower online and dwell QED in occluded condition
Online control duration influences golf putting performance
|
| Vine et al. (2017) |
PPOC |
Skilled golfers (mean handicap = 5.8, n = 27) |
Distance: 3.05 m
Six putts in 3 counterbalanced conditions: no occlusion, early vision (occlusion after initiation of backswing), late vision (occlusion until initiation of backswing)
|
Location: ball
Duration#:
No differences between conditions (~2,200-2,500)
|
Performance:
Control, late vision > early vision
Putting kinematics:
Lateral acceleration:
Control, late vision > early vision
Vertical acceleration:
Control < early vision
|
| Walters-Symons et al. (2017) |
SL, PER |
Experienced golfers (mean handicap = 5.7, n = 18) and novices (n = 21) |
Distance: 3.05 m
Putting until 5 hits and 5 misses were recorded
Comparing miss-hit and miss-miss pairs
|
Location: ball
Duration:
Golfers (1,920) > novices (1,240)
Random pairs: no differences in QED
Miss-hit pairs: hit (1,952) > preceding miss (1,389)
Miss-miss pairs: miss (1,438) < preceding miss (1,561)
|
Reaching 5 hits and 5 misses:
Golfers (14 putts) faster than novices (26 putts)
Longer QE helps recover performance after a miss
|
| Walters-Symons et al. (2018) |
PER, PPOC |
Golfers (mean handicap = 7.2, n = 34) |
Distance: 1.2 vs 2.4 m
Hole size: 5 vs 10 cm
Putter-face size: 1.7 vs .6 cm
After 5 warm-up putts, eight counterbalanced conditions of increasing difficulty. 10 putts in each condition
|
Location: ball
Total duration#:
2.4 m (2,200 msec) > 1.2 m (1,900 msec)
Interaction between putter-face size and distance – small putter-face and long distance led to longer QE duration.
QE before backswing: no differences.
Interaction between putter-face size and distance – small putter-face and long distance led to longer QE duration.
QE after backswing:
2.4 m (900) > 1.2 m (830)
|
Performance:
Distance: 1.2 > 2.4 m
Hole size: 10 cm > 5 cm
Putter-face size: 1.7 > .6
Weak correlations between QE and performance
Significant correlation in one condition (large target, long distance): r = .39
|
| Campbell et al. (2019) |
SK |
High-skilled (mean handicap = 6.9, n = 13) and less-skilled (mean handicap = 17, n = 11) golfers |
Distance: 1.83 vs. 3.66 m
Two blocks of 10 putts from the two distances
|
Location: ball
Duration:
1.83 m: high-skilled (1,202) = less-skilled (1,155)
3.66 m: high-skilled (1,347) = less-skilled (1,243)
|
Pupillometry:
Pupil dilation during putting > baseline (by over 30%)
Peak pupil dilation coincides with onset of QE (r = .73)
Performance:
High-skilled = less-skilled at both distances
|