Perception Is Reality. Or Is It?

Help Support :

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

EdLyons

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
546
Location
Wolverhampton
When we step on a stand, are we seeing the same flight path as our friend or student?

We've all been in a squad where someone says "how did you break it there? I didn't even SEE it until it was there!" 

In the same way that one particular colour of shooting lens will not be suitable for everyone, one individual's break point is not always going to be the best place for another to hit the clay.

We may be familiar with the "point your finger at an object, close an eye, does it jump?" test, however this is fundamentally flawed as not only does it depend on Eye Dominance (Eye Dominance and tests for it is a whole other article!) but also the amount of jump is proportional to our pupil distance (PD), i.e., the space between our two eyes, so for instance, two "Grade 1, Right Eye Dominant" shooters, one with a PD of 56 and another with a PD of 72, would see very different amounts of jump.

I can at this stage only hypothesise that they will also see very different amounts of leeed.

Inefficiency in the visual system can cause a person to read a target or a layout differently - a case in point in another sport is a Team GB basketball player I assessed who, when she was tired, was regularly hitting the rim of the hoop on her three point throws. 

Whilst she had been told her vision was fine (20:20) nobody had assessed the way that her eyes were actually working to get to that point. (I should mention that 20:20 means that if you stand 20feet from a standard eye chart, you will see what a "normal" person sees - it actually denotes merely average vision. As shooters, it is advantageous to surpass this standard which is something I actively work on in clinic.)

It transpired that she had an eye muscle weakness that meant that when concentrating to focus, her eyes turned in - just a little - but enough to disrupt her depth perception, she was "seeing" the hoop in the wrong place, it was not where her eyes were telling her it was.

It is important to note that if this perception was fixed, she would of course train to hit the hoop in this position, but as it SHIFTED when she became fatigued, this is where the problem arose. A deeper assessment and fitting of some high performance contact lenses then reduced the fatigue and also enhanced her vision by two stages past 20:20 which, as an elite athlete, is where her vision needs to be.

I wonder if the shooters who say "I hate driven targets" would have a similar visual profile.

If a coach has a student that tends to drop form towards the latter stages of a shoot, it could be that there is a visual issue.

I am not saying that perfect eyes make the perfect shooter, otherwise I would've pipped Phil Grey's incredible 99 at Northampton last Sunday (well done Phil!)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ed,

 Thank you for that (pardon the pun) insight. It just goes to show how we take things for granted and do not keep up to speed with health checks.

It is very good that we now have these sports scientists actively participating in our sport and associating with the issues that we have, thus having the ability to fully understand our problems and issues.

" I should mention that 20:20 means that if you stand 20feet from a standard eye chart, you will see what a "normal" person sees."

Just that one line made me realise I am disadvantaged.   "normal" ???? 

 
Interesting concept.

Ed fitted me with prescription shooting glasses last year and stated that my vision (with glasses!) was better than 20:20.

However I also have an intermittent eye muscle issue that causes me slight double vision on the RH side (similar to the example above ?) and I shoot right handed with both eyes open. My eyes were fine from Christmas until 10 days ago when they went 'wonky' again. The condition was brought on (this time) by extreme exhaustion.

By coincidence I had a shooting lesson yesterday and the instructor stated that my vision was excellent and that judging by my shooting I was pure right eye dominant (which I'm not).

At that point (90  minutes into a 2hr lesson) I told him that I had an intermittent eye problem and then immediately lost the ability to see the clays clearly. I then missed about 8 clays in a row having hit about 90% up to that point. Very strange indeed. 

It appears that I talked myself into having a real vision issue -  which up till that point my brain had managed to overcome........

I'm pleased to say that normal service was resumed shortly afterwards.

 
5 months ago, I realised that I could not focus at any distance with my right eye. Left eye is better, but i am right handed, right dominant. I was at Weston and my scores on next stands plummeted. I went on to Hornet same day and hit a 62, worst score by a mile in ages.

The next weekend I just forgot about it and hit a 90. The eyes, like anything else, can make you worry and cause distraction..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Absolutely - our brain and visual system is remarkably adaptable and so "worrying" about our eyes is just one more thing to distract us from hitting the target -much like the choke-fiddlers, ammo-switchers and gun-changers amongst us!

There have been many experiments on monkeys, convicts and students (i'm saying nothing) that have involved either standing the subject on their head or wearing "inverting glasses" so that everything looks upside down. After periods ranging from 2.5 to 24 hours, the brain has then flipped everything round again!

15 cans of Bulmer's has an analagous effect.

However, one of the major issues addressed in the original post is when the vision, and thus our perception, changes mid session.

Ensuring our vision is optimized for maximum performance then just gives us one less thing to worry about...

 
Is perception reality? Our US cousins will insist that it is, however when you raise the issue of parallax error, the wheels come off... ;)

 
rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated by some and exasperated by others......perceptions among shooters????....few shooters perceive the same when shooting the same target......I agree that PD could have something to do with that but we have come to the conclusion that more targets are missed due to a fluctuating amount of focus on the target that any one other one thing.....we talk about focus ratios being 50/50 which would be when the shooter is looking at the lead which would put their focus at the mid point between the target and the gun.....our conclusion is that focus ratios of 95% or more on the target and no more than 5% on the gun are ideal for peak performances......

there is a theory out there that if I am right handed and right eyed that I can consistently look at the lead and shoot the target consistently....not sure where it came from but one thing that has proven factual in our research is that muzzle awareness directly effects muzzle velocity which immediately EFFECTS perceived  FORWARD ALLOWANCE OR LEEED.....when muzzle speed is equal to birds speed lead becomes the most forgiving part of the equation as long as you are in front of the target....as long as the shooters muzzle speed is not consistent with the birds speed shot to shot stand to stand then the perceived amount of lead necessary to hit the target will be different person to person and also different to the same person given a muzzle speed that is not the same as the target......

speed and distance control the actual leeeed necessary to hit the target....angle controls PERCEIVED leeed....high 2 and high 4 on a skeet field if broken at the stake take the same leeed but the perception is different due to the angle..... the fourth component of lead is the one that is the most overlooked but is the one that brings consistency (or inconsistency) to the equation....gun speed creates consistent leeed....

However I would say that the reason there are so many different perceptions when people shoot the same target successfully number more than just one......Ed you understand the physiology of vision a hell of a lot better cause that is what you do........and fatigue will effect how well you can focus on a target and its effects will be different on different people and to know how it effects you is extremely important......but consider this....if you can accept that given good vision if a person is moving the gun the same speed as the target that their perceptions of leeed will be much closer to the same shot to shot on the same target.....but that would hold true only if they had the same amount of intense focus on each target.....as the focus shifts from the target to the gap or toward the gun the actual point of focus moves off the target to the gap and here is where the greatest amount of perceptions change......

When you understand that the retina begins the process and then the visual data is handed off the the visual processing system of the brain which immediately begins anticipation of where the target will be in the future (that would be the lead) even thought it is seen where it really is and you couple that with the fact that the conscious part of the brain does not have the band width to understand that information then the conclusion that we have come to is that .........as the eyes come off the target to consciously check the lead the input from the target to the brain has been compromised.....most of the time that results in a miss due to the gun slowing as the eyes come off the target to check the lead.....the focus ratio has now shifted to an unknown ratio which creates anything but consistent results AND PERCEPTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the interesting thing is the focus shifts as the PERCEIVED target difficulty increases for what ever reason and the shift is always to the gun and or the gap....or the LEEED...

will try to check in tomorrow......in the mean time answer me this if the eyes have to be on the target and the gun pointed ahead of the target then where are the eyes really....?....the eyes and the gun can never share the same space just like the gun and the target cant do same.....and the eyes and the target must share the same space so where are the eyes really relative to where the gun is????

cheers all~!@#$%^&*(

Gil Ash

 
Hey Gil - glad you ain't dead  :rabbi:

Yes, the above was just one example as to why we may miss, or read a different line, rather than a panacea! I'm the vision guy, you're the coach!

I completely agree that when the focus comes off the target and ends up in the no-mans land between target and muzzles (conscious leeed check) then, quoting Nicola, "we're doomed!"

We know that the eyes have to be across the rib, as we can see using your animations on the Knowledge Vault - I've seen this first hand with you out in Texas.

Although...I'm going to have to get you in my clinic and demonstrate this "focus" term when you guys come over (cat out the bag!)

 
Damn cat......the part of this that continues to confuse me is the disregard to the science of what skill is and how it is built by shotgunners world wide and coaches toooo........have re read Daniel Coyles book "The talent Code" that is about the science of skill building and what really happens neurologically as skill develops in the brain.....Coyle compares the difference in conscious brain function to subconscious brain function as being the same as Copper wire (conscious neuro function) to broadband (subconscious neuro function)......the conscious brain can be aware of and orchestrate 40 bits of data per second and the subconscious brain can be aware of and orchestrate 11 million bits of data per second......now that is a big difference and being from Texas I know what big is......

said another way the conscious brain does not have the band width to interpret enough data to create a skill circuit and its not supposed to have it......the way we develop skill is through conscious trial and error.....firing the neuro-circuit over and over again until it fires it right and then firing that circuit over and over again until the Myelin insulation forms around the new circuit and it begins to fire without conscious thought like talking, typing, walking, running, and yes shooting a shotgun....... it is at that point that something becomes skill......and the more you fire the circuit the more Myelin grows on it and the quicker it fires with less interference and the better and more skillful  it becomes..... understand we are not talking about a circuit that contains 10 or even 100 links that have to come together in 50 mls to put the gun ahead of the target in the correct spot to break it once not to mention 10 times in a row....these circuits are extremely complex and have 300,000 or more links that have to be timed perfectly in order to operate in a skillful sense.....

when you accept the real complexity of what skill really is scientifically then it becomes obvious why applying conscious lead to a moving target becomes less than desirable because the conscious brain doesn't have the band width to do the calculation.....!!!!!!!!...your guessing when shooting conscious lead.....hello

Ed here is something that not many people have thought about and it is a real reason some of our older shooters are inconsistent.......

Balance.......as we age we begint to loose the ability to maintain good solid balance.....next  time you are at the range watch the shooters ankles.....the more they move the more their concentration is on balance and thus off he target.....they dont know it  because the subconscious can to soooo many things in a second but it will eventually effect the outcome of the shot.....we have recommended our shooters stand on balance pads for as much as 20 minutes twice a day.....not many know that all the major golf schools have a balance regiment built in as well as many college foot ball programs......

you have three balance centers....the eyes, feet and the inner ear......now the inner ear does the lion share of the balancing but as we age we begin to be more careful with where we put our feet in an attempt to not fall and as we become careful we do not stress the inner ear as much and balance is a myelinated neuro circuit and if you don't use it the myelin does not keep up its growth and it decays just like any other circuit....the better in balance you are the better you will perform.....

just the other day had a lesson with an intermediate shooter and had a rather fast true pair going away and he asked me to shoot it.....so got his gun and smashed the first pair and then proceeded to miss the next 8 targets.....perplexed I stopped and then i felt it.....I was wearing shoes with a rounded bottom that flex the leg muscle when you walk and they also stress your balance circuits and I could feel myself a little out of balance while i was shooting because I had to move quickly on each bird to shoot the pair....so i took the shoes off and shot 8 straight with a gun that was too long and way to high for me.....now as you have seen we can shoot without having our head on the stock so the student can see what is going on during the shot so shooting an ill fitting gun is no big deal to us....but fighting balance during a shot  is not something that is conducive to higher and more consistent scores.....oh and btw some of our students are able to balance on these pads for 5-10 minutes at a time with their eyes shut.....!!!!!some even do gun mounts while on them.....can stress enough haveing a balance regimen in your training....

more later cheers~!@#$%^&

GA

 
Another good post Gil, now here is a little tester for balance.

Stand on one foot with your arms out to the side,,,,,now try to do the same with your eyes closed.

 
Another brilliant post Gil. Love reading this.

I have had 'The Talent Code' book for a few months and not got chance to read it yet :smile:

Our OT Olympic shooters are using 'balance pads' now. I had not heard of them before until a month ago when Steve Scott was talking to me about them.

I think they use them to tone as well.

What is the answer to your question posed at post 9..?

 
in the mean time answer me this if the eyes have to be on the target and the gun pointed ahead of the target then where are the eyes really....?

I may well be wrong but I think your eyes can see where you wish the shot to go in front of the clay leeeeed, ( within field of view width wise) but only on the same depth of field I.e. in front of clay and not at muzzle hence importance of master eye sitting over the rib. For this reason I struggle to understand how others say they see inches of leeed when I see several feet and we are both shooting maintained leeed at the exact same target?

May have missed the point but just a thought?

 
in the mean time answer me this if the eyes have to be on the target and the gun pointed ahead of the target then where are the eyes really....? I may well be wrong but I think your eyes can see where you wish the shot to go in front of the clay leeeeed, ( within field of view width wise) but only on the same depth of field I.e. in front of clay and not at muzzle hence importance of master eye sitting over the rib. For this reason I struggle to understand how others say they see inches of leeed when I see several feet and we are both shooting maintained leeed at the exact same target? May have missed the point but just a thought?
As mentioned: parallax error.

parallax

 
Pronunciation: /ˈparəlaks/
 
Definition of parallax
noun

[mass noun]

  • the effect whereby the position or direction of an object appears to differ when viewed from different positions, e.g. through the viewfinder and the lens of a camera:[as modifier]:what you see in the viewfinder won’t be quite what you get in the photograph because of parallax error
  •  [count noun] the angular amount of parallax in a particular case, especially that of a star viewed from different points in the earth’s orbit:he succeeded in measuring the parallax of the star 61 Cygni
Derivatives
parallactic



The number of aspects which affect any given shooter on the same target on the same day are myriad: a shooter's difference in height from the next shooter; their gun mount [gun-up/gun-down]; whether they are short/long sighted; whether they are right or left eye dominant; physiology (are they of slight build, or bull-necked); health on the day (are they feeling weak or at the top of their game); hydration; response to any medication they might be taking on the day - the list goes on and on... and on.

Even if you stand immediately behind a shooter to see how he/she is shooting the target [even if they are hitting every pair] makes you prone to parallax error as you're not standing in the same position they are when they shoot it (to you, the target may appear to scream away, when the guy in the stand might think that they had loads of time to address the same simo-pair). Regardless of the marketing blurb of the great and good, it is an inescapable aspect of physics which no shooter, regardless of how long they've been shooting, or what heights they might have reached, or gongs they might have won in the sport, are all susceptible to parallax error. And anyone who denies this is simply denying the law of physics - which makes their opinion suspect at best.

In short, regardless of whether you're Sir George of Digweed, or Joe Newbie Esq, how you see the same clay as the guy in front of you, as compared to the next guy, will always be different - due to parallax error. Call it 'focus' if it you makes you fell better - although focus is a woolly and nebulous term which means different things to different people, whereas parallax error is a determinant and precise scientific term.

So is perception reality? No. Reality is reality. Perception is just what you perceive (and therein lies the quantum gap between reality and perception) - in the fond knowledge that we're all parallactic when it comes to our differences in all the parameters mentioned above when facing the same target, on the same stand, on the same day.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For this reason I struggle to understand how others say they see inches of leeed when I see several feet and we are both shooting maintained leeed at the exact same target? May have missed the point but just a thought?
Speed of swing/movement inherent in different individuals approach. It can't be too long now before we are treated to shot kam videos incorporating an X showing where the eye is looking at moment of firing and of course throughout the shot taking movement to the target etc, I suspect very strongly that many (if any) don't need to stare the target to death. 

Also bear in mind not all maintained lead starts off in the same way, you can start in front, initially come from behind or insert on the target and pull away to see a given lead and many would subconciously use one or the other depending on the bird. The same person can see different leads on the same bird using two different guns, particularly with different barrel lengths, ( many believe they see less lead with 32" guns) this is almost certainly due to the greater/lesser swing ability of varying weights of barrels creating different moments of inertia's.

 
As mentioned: parallax error.

The number of aspects which affect any given shooter on the same target on the same day are myriad: a shooter's difference in height from the next shooter; their gun mount [gun-up/gun-down]; whether they are short/long sighted; whether they are right or left eye dominant; physiology (are they of slight build, or bull-necked); health on the day (are they feeling weak or at the top of their game); hydration; response to any medication they might be taking on the day - the list goes on and on... and on.

Even if you stand immediately behind a shooter to see how he/she is shooting the target [even if they are hitting every pair] makes you prone to parallax error as you're not standing in the same position they are when they shoot it (to you, the target may appear to scream away, when the guy in the stand might think that they had loads of time to address the same simo-pair). Regardless of the marketing blurb of the great and good, it is an inescapable aspect of physics which no shooter, regardless of how long they've been shooting, or what heights they might have reached, or gongs they might have won in the sport, are all susceptible to parallax error. And anyone who denies this is simply denying the law of physics - which makes their opinion suspect at best.

In short, regardless of whether you're Sir George of Digweed, or Joe Newbie Esq, how you see the same clay as the guy in front of you, as compared to the next guy, will always be different - due to parallax error. Call it 'focus' if it you makes you fell better - although focus is a woolly and nebulous term which means different things to different people, whereas parallax error is a determinant and precise scientific term.

So is perception reality? No. Reality is reality. Perception is just what you perceive (and therein lies the quantum gap between reality and perception) - in the fond knowledge that we're all parallactic when it comes to our differences in all the parameters mentioned above when facing the same target, on the same stand, on the same day.
 
Back
Top