Effect of Visual Training on Batting Performance and Pitch Recognition of Division I Softball Players

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of preseason visual training on bat velocity (BV), batted-ball velocity (BBV), and pitch recognition (PR). METHODS: Twenty female NCAA Division I softball players (age = 19.6 + 1.0 yr) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups 5 weeks before the season began. Group 1 (n = 10) was the control group and received no vision training. Group 2 (n = 10) completed 18 vision training sessions over the span of 6 weeks (3 sessions/wk). Vision exercises consisted of visual flexibility (convergence and divergence), visual recognition (accuracy and response time), and visual tracking (accuracy and response time). Each session was performed with a game pad controller on a computer and lasted between 10-20 minutes. Prior to the beginning of the 6 weeks, all subjects were tested on body composition using a Tanita bioelectrical impedance device; grip strength using a Jamar hand dynamometer; and vertical jump using a Vertec vertical jump apparatus to assess leg power. Instantaneous BV was recorded by a SETPRO SPRT5A chronograph. For BBV, subjects were directed to hit softballs between a zone (7.6 m or 25 ft away from the back of home plate and 4.6 m or 15 ft wide) set up on the softball field while BBV was measured by a Stalker Pro radar gun set up behind home plate. Softballs were delivered at a mean velocity of 24.6 m/s (55 mph) from the Jugs automated pitching machine 13.1 m or 43 ft away from home plate. Subjects also performed PR where a softball was delivered from the same pitching machine and called out “ball” or “strike”. An official NCAA “strike zone”, adjusted for each player, was set-up behind each hitter. The number of correct responses was recorded as the PR score. Both groups were also assessed by a commercial visual training program on their depth perception, eye flexibility, visual recognition, and visual tracking. Once the 6-week training program was completed, all subjects were re-tested on the same parameters previously listed. RESULTS: Univariate ANOVA's comparing the Group 1 and Group 2 revealed significant difference (p < 0.05) in convergence percentage (p = .029), visual recognition response time (p = .001), visual tracking response time (p = .004), and level 4 depth perception (p = .000). There were no significant differences in BV, BBV, PR, or other visual components. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that vision training can improve an athlete's vision skills; however there was no effect on their BBV and PR ability on the field during the preseason. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Although there were no significant improvements in BBV or PR, it must be stated that these softball players were engaged in 5 wk of preseason practice and the first week of their season. Therefore, these softball-specific skills were being practiced 6d/wk for 6 wk by all players. It is reasonable to think that all players “on-field” skills were being trained daily and the additional visual training did not provide further benefits. A limitation of this study was BBV. Not all batted-balls hit within the zone were recorded by the Stalker Pro radar gun. Therefore, only the best batted-balls were recorded. It is suggested that future studies count the total number of swings taken to see if there is a significant difference between groups. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We would like to thank Vizual Edge for partially funding this project.