Is your dissertation completed? Most universities now publish the full text of theses on-line. I'd love to read the whole thing. It sounds like a nice piece of work!RN Hawkins wrote:I am the author of this stance width study. If anyone has any questions, please let me know. I will be glad to answer them. This study was one of four experiments I conducted for my PhD dissertation. All have been submitted for publication in scientific journals. Email address is: rnh1953@aol.com
scientific study based teaching in shooting
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
Most people can shoot a perfectly good score if they shut their eyes 1-2 seconds before the shot is released. Try it and be amazed.David Levene wrote:"....suppression of visual attention during the final seconds of the pre-shot period is a necessary prerequisite for automatic shot execution, as controlled by mechanisms of intention."Rover wrote:I think the link provided by Levene says that the shooters were looking at their sights and not the target (for their best shots).
The full study, coupled with discussions with 2 of the authors, was a real eye-opener, although most of it passed a couple of feet above my head.
Fine-tuning-that-last 0.1% out-of-the-sights-just-fraction-of-a-second-before-you-pull-the-trigger is what stuffs it up for most people, and its why I like a roll-off trigger especially for precision shooting.
Most people will shoot far better if they just aim and someone else releases the shot, eg by a camera bulb, without knowing when the shot is going to be released.
-
luftskytter
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:50 am
- Location: Norway
stance and attention
Yes, I have read about similar test results some time ago (same study?).
I've also tried it out, my private conclusion is to cancel all previous wide stance experiments. I'm also waiting for suggestions about the mechanisms that cause these results, like "natural stance", force transfer etc.
It would also be interesting to see similar tests done for rifle shooting.
Being a modest performer, I can confirm that shot execution matters much more than sight picture, and sight alignment more than sight alignment on target. Always interesting to read how this works out with top performers.
Finally:
everybody tends to mix two things, FOCUS and ATTENTION.
Your attention and your physical (optical) focus can be at different places.
I think this is important to remember.
I've also tried it out, my private conclusion is to cancel all previous wide stance experiments. I'm also waiting for suggestions about the mechanisms that cause these results, like "natural stance", force transfer etc.
It would also be interesting to see similar tests done for rifle shooting.
Being a modest performer, I can confirm that shot execution matters much more than sight picture, and sight alignment more than sight alignment on target. Always interesting to read how this works out with top performers.
Finally:
everybody tends to mix two things, FOCUS and ATTENTION.
Your attention and your physical (optical) focus can be at different places.
I think this is important to remember.
Many years ago I saw a snippet of a documentary about a new product for preventing hip injuries in elderly folks; it was a series of tiny vibrating motors inserted into the shoe soles. The idea was that by stimulating nerve response, I think cyclically rather than continuously, the brain was reminded how to balance, helping to avoid the all-too-common falls suffered by frail elders. Strangely, the first patent I can find is dated just last year... but I remember seeing this well over 15 years ago... as I haven't watched any TV in at least that long.
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110251520
This news article spells it out a bit more clearly, indicating that there was significant stability enhancement in young test participants, and more enhancement in elders:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... falls.html
I wonder if this sort of thing would be allowable for ISSF shooting competition? There is obviously the rule regarding the height of ankle allowable, no ski boot style support there! But nothing is mentioned about nerve stimulation. According to the second article the signals seem unlikely to be distracting, as:
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110251520
This news article spells it out a bit more clearly, indicating that there was significant stability enhancement in young test participants, and more enhancement in elders:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... falls.html
I wonder if this sort of thing would be allowable for ISSF shooting competition? There is obviously the rule regarding the height of ankle allowable, no ski boot style support there! But nothing is mentioned about nerve stimulation. According to the second article the signals seem unlikely to be distracting, as:
With piezoelectric motors of various tiny sizes being cheap these days (used cellular phone vibrators for instance can be purchased from recycling outfits in large quantities for dirt cheap) it would seem a worthwhile endeavour for a shooting shoe maker to look into such a specialty product. I wouldn't want to make my own most likely. Too fussy in the electronics. But as long as we're discussing scientific improvements to shooting potential this seems relevant. Or maybe there's already such a shooting shoe?A noise signal was fed into the insoles to make them vibrate, adjusted to a point just below that which was detectable.
-
luftskytter
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:50 am
- Location: Norway
balance enhancement
This is quite interesting.
The idea seems to be related to what audio people call "dither".
This is the addition of low level (electrical) noise to digital audio to enhance low level resolution to below 1 LSB (least significant bit). Our nervous system is sort of digital, relying on the "triggering" of nerve cells, and my modest private experiments indicate that acoustic (mechanical) "dither" also works. A slight amount of acoustic noise can enable you to hear weak sounds. It seems to work in the same way; a slight noise "riding" on top of the wanted signal raises the amplitude of the previously inaudible signal above the threshold of hearing.
It seems quite plausible that similar things can be done to any kind of nerve signal, like the mentioned under foot vibrators.
Would a vibrating gun be a self defeating excercise, or could a grip enhancing thingy be made to work on a level low enough not to disturb accuracy???
The idea seems to be related to what audio people call "dither".
This is the addition of low level (electrical) noise to digital audio to enhance low level resolution to below 1 LSB (least significant bit). Our nervous system is sort of digital, relying on the "triggering" of nerve cells, and my modest private experiments indicate that acoustic (mechanical) "dither" also works. A slight amount of acoustic noise can enable you to hear weak sounds. It seems to work in the same way; a slight noise "riding" on top of the wanted signal raises the amplitude of the previously inaudible signal above the threshold of hearing.
It seems quite plausible that similar things can be done to any kind of nerve signal, like the mentioned under foot vibrators.
Would a vibrating gun be a self defeating excercise, or could a grip enhancing thingy be made to work on a level low enough not to disturb accuracy???
Probably copying someone...
I wrote this for Dave Salyer many years ago. My most recent thinking is essentially in agreement that one does not have to watch the alignment (front sight) intently. Rather. in keeping with the analysis below, trying to "keep" alignment is conscious and will hurt the shot. In essence, once you have established sight alignment and are in your aiming area, just release the shot - do not think. Pursuing perfect alignment (or aiming area) after the initiation of the trigger will doom the score.
Our consciousness of the surroundings does not live in the present, rather in
the near-historical past. For instance: The "seeing process" is described briefly.
Light strikes the rods and cones in the back of the eye and a chemical reaction
occurs. The nerve impulses from that chemical reaction are transmitted to the
optical nerve, also by a series of chemical reactions in the nerve cells. The
impulses then arrive in the cortex that allows interpretation in our "mind"
(whatever that is). One notes that these biochemical reactions take a finite and
actually rather long time.
Demonstrable audio reaction time is two to three tenths of a second and (is)
faster than visual reaction time.
In bullseye as well as other shooting disciplines, this concept is extremely important.
Quite simply, one living in the past can not have an effect on the present.
The present is represented by the "real" (time) sight picture. what we "see"
is historical.
Since the above is true, once the sight alignment and aiming area have been
achieved and positive trigger pressure begins, ego and judgment must cease!
One ceases to be a "doer" and becomes an "observer". The only decision the
conscious mind can make is to stop the shot from firing. Mr. Eddy notes that
we all have decided to stop a shot and the darn thing goes anyhow…
We were trying to change history!
The unconscious or subconscious is (or should be) trained to move the trigger to
the rear and will result in the best result we are physically capable of performing. The
conscious mind will judge, worry, fear and cause failure.
Our consciousness of the surroundings does not live in the present, rather in
the near-historical past. For instance: The "seeing process" is described briefly.
Light strikes the rods and cones in the back of the eye and a chemical reaction
occurs. The nerve impulses from that chemical reaction are transmitted to the
optical nerve, also by a series of chemical reactions in the nerve cells. The
impulses then arrive in the cortex that allows interpretation in our "mind"
(whatever that is). One notes that these biochemical reactions take a finite and
actually rather long time.
Demonstrable audio reaction time is two to three tenths of a second and (is)
faster than visual reaction time.
In bullseye as well as other shooting disciplines, this concept is extremely important.
Quite simply, one living in the past can not have an effect on the present.
The present is represented by the "real" (time) sight picture. what we "see"
is historical.
Since the above is true, once the sight alignment and aiming area have been
achieved and positive trigger pressure begins, ego and judgment must cease!
One ceases to be a "doer" and becomes an "observer". The only decision the
conscious mind can make is to stop the shot from firing. Mr. Eddy notes that
we all have decided to stop a shot and the darn thing goes anyhow…
We were trying to change history!
The unconscious or subconscious is (or should be) trained to move the trigger to
the rear and will result in the best result we are physically capable of performing. The
conscious mind will judge, worry, fear and cause failure.
Thanks so much for that tleddy, very helpful indeed. Since hurting my shoulder last summer my improvement curve has gone all wobbly, but essentially stalled around 88% for over 6 months now. I've had the odd string of targets with nice neat groups, then a bunch with wildly spread out patterns looking like shotgun practice. I'd been coming to the conclusion lately that this was due to over-thinking, as I'd certainly been trying harder and harder to 'fight' the sights into alignment before finally deciding to pull the trigger. Of course it's more complicated than that, as I've been casting about with all sorts of elements in seeking solutions.
So recently I've been trying to regain what I had as a kid with a pellet rifle. I rarely missed back then. Could hit a penny off a fence post without hesitation, and never really paid much attention to getting the sights right. As often as not I didn't even look at the sights, just shot. So I've been whittling down my sighting time, trying to get the shots off on the first pass at the black, not the third or fourth or whatever as I try to steady down... which is hopeless of course, as the wobbles just get worse.
Your contribution here tonight reinforced that, and my evening practice went incredibly well. For starters I shot at a black dot the size of the 10 ring. I know it's not kosher for 10m AP, but lately I've decided to go back to centre aim, as I did when I was a kid, and playing with shooting a small dot is sometimes a good rest from the seriousness of a proper target. Of fifteen shots, five were well away from the dot, and on each of these it was plain that I'd held much too long and was on my second or third pass at the bull. The other ten shots were all on the 10, at least catching the edge of it, but 7 where right in there.
So I went on with a few proper targets, and hit a 94, 90, and 92. By this point I was tired and let it go. But the lesson is plain enough; obsessing over aim isn't doing me any good at all. I'll keep working on this more natural style of shooting over the next few weeks. Have a competition coming up the beginning of March and it'd be nice to be ready.
So recently I've been trying to regain what I had as a kid with a pellet rifle. I rarely missed back then. Could hit a penny off a fence post without hesitation, and never really paid much attention to getting the sights right. As often as not I didn't even look at the sights, just shot. So I've been whittling down my sighting time, trying to get the shots off on the first pass at the black, not the third or fourth or whatever as I try to steady down... which is hopeless of course, as the wobbles just get worse.
Your contribution here tonight reinforced that, and my evening practice went incredibly well. For starters I shot at a black dot the size of the 10 ring. I know it's not kosher for 10m AP, but lately I've decided to go back to centre aim, as I did when I was a kid, and playing with shooting a small dot is sometimes a good rest from the seriousness of a proper target. Of fifteen shots, five were well away from the dot, and on each of these it was plain that I'd held much too long and was on my second or third pass at the bull. The other ten shots were all on the 10, at least catching the edge of it, but 7 where right in there.
So I went on with a few proper targets, and hit a 94, 90, and 92. By this point I was tired and let it go. But the lesson is plain enough; obsessing over aim isn't doing me any good at all. I'll keep working on this more natural style of shooting over the next few weeks. Have a competition coming up the beginning of March and it'd be nice to be ready.
"Putting out the fire with gasoline"- D Bowie
This study seems to cotradict the conventional wisdom:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4094025
RDL :)
This study seems to cotradict the conventional wisdom:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4094025
RDL :)
Gaze
On the focus, not really - I think they are describing the process from the International Ready Position at 45 degrees down.
I cannot speak to modern techniques, but my coaches in the 80s had one look toward the base of the target, on the turn quickly move the pistol through the gaze, picking up the sights on the way up and having perfect alignment arriving in the aiming area.
One certainly needs to establish correct sight alignment and that cannot (!) be established without seeing the front sight clearly. I think the authors are describing the method to get to that point, not the final alignment.
My thesis above is after you arrive in the aiming area - get the alignment in the aiming area, stop thinking and pull the trigger. Once you have established the initial alignment and aiming area, there is nothing you can do to make the shot better - trust your hold, stance and shoot.
Tillman
ClearsighT Inventor
I cannot speak to modern techniques, but my coaches in the 80s had one look toward the base of the target, on the turn quickly move the pistol through the gaze, picking up the sights on the way up and having perfect alignment arriving in the aiming area.
One certainly needs to establish correct sight alignment and that cannot (!) be established without seeing the front sight clearly. I think the authors are describing the method to get to that point, not the final alignment.
My thesis above is after you arrive in the aiming area - get the alignment in the aiming area, stop thinking and pull the trigger. Once you have established the initial alignment and aiming area, there is nothing you can do to make the shot better - trust your hold, stance and shoot.
Tillman
ClearsighT Inventor