Percephaland Motor Skills, 1991, 72, 219-223.

O Perceptual and Motor Skills 1991

AN EMPIRICAL NOTE ON T H E BILATERAL USE O F A

BASEBALL GLOVE BY SKILLED CATCHERS '

MARK G. FISCHMAN AND ROBERT SANDERS

Motor Behavior Center
Auburn University

Summary.-This study investigated whether 20 skilled baseball/softball players

could perform simple gloved catching with both the dominant and nondominant catch-
ing hand in the presence and absence of visual feedback of the glove. Results showed
essentially perfect performance in all conditions. Out of 1600 total trials, only 7 balls
were dropped, all by the nondominant catching hand. Of these, 6 occurred in the ab-
sence of vision of the glove. The data provide a demonstration of bilateral motor skill
transfer and also suggest that articular proprioception allows adequate positioning of
the glove and timing of the grasp by the nondorninanr catching hand. Viewing the
glove is not necessary.

This paper represents an extension of two recent studies on the visual

and proprioceptive control of simple catching. Fischman and Schneider
(1985) tested skilled baseball/softball players and unskilled novices on bare-
hand catching, in both a full vision condition and in a screened condition
which prevented sight of the catching hand. Both groups performed better
when sight of the hand was available, but the screen exerted differential
effects on the two groups. The novices experienced greater difficulty in posi-
tioning the limb in the ball's line of flight; the skilled catchers had more
trouble with timing the grasp component.
Fischman and Schneider (1985) also found no difference in catching
performance between the right and left hands. This was surprising, particu-
larly for their skilled subjects, for whom better left-hand performance was
predicted. All subjects were right-hand dominant (throwing hand preference)
and so used the left hand for catching when playing baseball or softball.
However, as Fischman and Mucci (1989) demonstrated, barehand catching of
tennis balls and gloved catching of softballs are not the same skills. Use of a
glove effectively removes the grasping component from the act and also
reduces the requirements for accuracy of positioning. The underlying assurnp-
tion of Fischman and Schneider (1985) that there would be near perfectly
transfer between gloved catching and barehand catching, was unfounded.
While Fischman and Mucci (1989) showed that a glove makes it easier
to execute both phases of simple catching-positioning and grasping, they

'We thank S. Chandler, M. Layne, K. McBrayer, S. Ray, T. Thompson, and J. Thomson, for
help with collecting data. Address correspondence to Mark G. Fischman, Motor Behavior
Center, Auburn University, Department of Health & Human Performance, Auburn University,
AL 36849.
220 M. G. FISCHMAN & R. SANDERS

also stated that the glove does these things "provided one is proficient in its
use" (p. 255). In their experiment, skilled catchers used the glove on the
dominant catching hand only (left hand for right-hand throwers). An inter-
esting question arises regarding specificity of skill. Can skilled baseball/soft-
ball players use a glove on the nondominant catching hand? Also, when sight
of the catching hand is blocked, are there differences in the positioning
and grasping aspects between the dominant and nondominant catching
limbs? This study addressed these questions by having experienced base-
ball/softball players perform simple gloved catching with both their dominant
and nondorninant catching hands in the presence and absence of visual feed-
back of the glove. The present experiment indicates there is essentially per-
fect performance in all conditions, and we argue that the use of a glove is
not specific to the practiced limb; facility with the nondominant catching
limb can be explained more simply in terms of bilateral transfer of skill.

Subjects and Design

Twenty Auburn University undergraduate and graduate students (13
men and 7 women) volunteered to serve as subjects. All were skilled softball
and/or baseball players with experience on high school and university varsity
teams or advanced intramural and city-league teams. All subjects were
right-hand throwers, had normal or corrected eyesight, and ranged in age
from 21 to 36 years.
A 2 x 2 (hand x screen condition) design with repeated measures on
both factors was used. Levels of the first factor were dominant catching hand
and nondominant catching hand; levels of the second factor were screen and
no-screen conditions.
Apparatus and Tasks
The apparatus and tasks were nearly identical to those used by
Fischman and Mucci (1989) and complete descriptions can be found in that
publication. Essentially, subjects used a baseball glove to catch 12-in. leather
softballs thrown at about head height. Balls were thrown by an electronic
pitching machine (Jugs Combination) over a distance of 9.3 m at a speed of
11.63 rn/sec. (26 mph). A radar speed gun (Jugs Supergun 11) was used peri-
odically to check ball speed throughout the testing. Variability in ball speed
was f 1 mph.
For all trials, subjects wore a lightweight plastic flight simulator hood
(Aero Products Research, Inc.). During the no-screen conditions the front
edge of the hood was raised to permit full view of the pitching machine and
ball. During the screen conditions the hood was fitted, by means of a velcro
strip, with a 25-cm x 25-cm black cloth which extended down and covered
the upper part of the subject's shoulder on the side of the catching hand.
 13ILATERAL USE OF BASEBALL GLOVE 22 1

This screen blocked the subject's vision of the catching hand while permit-
ting the ball to be seen for all but approximately the last 53 milliseconds of
its 813-msec. flight. The screen occluded nearly 70° of the visual field.
During the dominant catching-hand conditions (which was the left hand
for every subject), subjects used their own fielder's gloves. In the non-
dominant catching hand condition, subjects used a standard left-hand field-
er's glove (Rawlings USA 8) on the right hand. Although new, the glove had
been thoroughly conditioned and "broken in," and subjects indicated they
felt comfortable using it.
Procedure
Subjects performed a block of 20 trials, preceded by three practice
trials, in each combination of the hand and screen condition factors. To en-
sure that we had a relatively homogeneous group of skilled catchers, each
subject performed the dominant catching hand, no-screen condition first
(Whiting, 1986; Whiting, Savelsbergh, & Faber, 1988). Any subject failing
to catch all 20 balls in this condition would be eliminated from the study.
For the remaining three conditions, we used all six possible order combina-
tions. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of these orders, with the
restriction that each order contain at least three subjects.
All testing was conducted in a large carpeted, well-lit room. Subjects
were positioned so that each ball would pass approximately 30 cm to the
catching side and about head height. The catching arm remained at the sub-
ject's side until the ball was released from the pitching machine and returned
there between catches. A box was placed on the floor by the subject's non-
catching side and served as a receptacle for any caught balls. Balls were
projected at 5-sec. intervals and there was a 2-min. rest between conditions.
Trials were repeated if the ball was projected completely beyond the reach of
the subject, or if the subject reported seeing the glove in the screen condi-
tions. Less than 1% of the trials had to be repeated for these reasons.
Each trial was observed by two raters who independently classified any
missed balls as either positioning or grasping errors (Fischman & Mucci,
1989; Smyth & Marriott, 1982). O n the rare occasions in which a ball was
missed, there was 100% agreement between the raters as to the type of
error; see also Rosengren, Pick, and Hofsten (1988), who used experiment-
ers' observations to record catching performance.

RESULTSAND DISCUSSION
No subject had to be replaced for failure to catch every ball in the dom-
inant catching hand, no-screen condition. Thus, we are confident that our
subjects were skilled in the use of a glove. Out of 1600 total test trials, only
seven balls were dropped, all by the nondominant hand. Of these, only one
occurred during the no-screen condition. Of the six screen-condition errors,
222 M. G. FISCHMAN & R. SANDERS

five were classified as faulty grasps in w h c h the glove began to close before
the ball arrived; the other was due to incorrect positioning.
A 2 x 2 (hand x screen condition) repeated-measures analysis of variance
on total number of catches showed a nonsignificant interaction and no effect
for screen condition (ps > .05). Performance with the screen (M = 19.9,
SD = 0.3) was essentially the same as performance without the screen
(M = 20.0, SD = 0.1). This is similar to Fischman and Mucci's (1989) finding
for use of a glove by the dominant catching hand. The main effect for hand
was significant (F,,,, = 7.11, p < .03), indicating that more catches were made
with the dominant catching hand (M = 20.0, SD = 0.0) than with the non-
dominant one (M = 19.8, SD = 0.3). However, whde statistical significance is
a necessary condition for regarding an obtained effect as important, in this
case it is not sufficient. 'The practical difference in use of a glove between
the dominant and nondominant hands, as demonstrated in this experiment,
is indeed trivial.
We now turn to the two questions we posed in the introduction of this
article. The first asked whether skilled baseball/softball players could profi-
ciently use a glove on the nondominant catching hand. Because only one ball
was dropped by the nondominant hand in the no-screen condition, the an-
swer is affirmative and probably shows the bilateral nature of motor s l d
transfer (Ammons, 1958; Hicks, Frank, & Kinsbourne, 1982; Hicks, Gual-
tieri, & Schroeder, 1983).
The second question dealt with the importance of sight of the glove
when catching with the nondominant hand. Based on the results of this ex-
periment, we are forced to conclude that it is not important. Articular
proprioception appears sufficient to allow for accurate positioning of the
glove and timing of the grasp. This, however, has not been true for barehand
catching (Davids & Stratford, 1989; Diggles, Grabiner, & Garhammer, 1987;
Fischman & Mucci, 1989; Fischman & Schneider, 1985; Rosengren, et al.,
1988; Smyth & Marriott, 1982; Whiting, et al., 1988).
I n summary, skilled catchers can proficiently use a glove with their non-
dominant catching hands and can d o so even when sight of the glove is
blocked. However, while these conclusions are justified by the present data,
we have some reservations based on the relative simplicity of the tasks in
terms of ball speed, distance, and trajectory. Verbal reports by the subjects
suggest that the tasks were just too simple for expert catchers and may there-
fore have not provided an adequate test of the parameters under study.
However, we felt that it was important to stay within the boundaries of past
work since one of our goals was to replicate the findings of Fischman and
Mucci (1989) on the use of a glove and of Fischman and Schneider (1985)
on bilateral-catching performance.
Based on the work of Whiting and his colleagues in the 1970s (see
 BILATERAL USE OF BASEBALL GLOVE 223

Whiting, et al., 1988 for a review) and the more recent work on vision and
proprioception in catching (e.g., Fischrnan & Schneider, 1985; Srnyth &
Marriott, 1982), we have built a considerable database regarding the irnpor-
tance of viewing the ball and viewing the hand in extremely simple catching.
It is time to expand on past work and make the catching task more difficult,
thereby testing the generalizability of our findings under more stressful
catching conditions.
REFERENCES
AMMONS,R. B. (1958) 'Le mouvement.' In G . S. Seward & J. P. Seward (Eds.), Current psy-
chological issues. New York: Holt. Pp. 146-183.
D ~ v m s ,K., & STRATFORD, R. (1989) Peripheral vision and simple catching: the screen para-
digm revisited. Journal of Sports Sciences, 7, 139-152.
DIGGLES,V. A,, GRABINER, M. D., & GARHAMMER, J. (1987) Skill level and efficacy of effec-
tor visual feedback in ball catching. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 987-993.
FISCHMAN,M. G., & MUCCI,W. G. (1989) Influence of a baseball glove on the nature of
errors produced in simple one-hand catching. Research Quarferly for Exercise and Sport,
60, 251-255.
FISCHMAN, M. G., & SCHNEIDER, T. (1985) Skill level, vision, and proprioception in simple
one-hand catching. Journal of Motor Behavior, 17, 219-229.
HICKS, R. E., FRANK, J. M., & KINSBOURNE, M. (1982) The locus of bimanual skill transfer.
Journal of General Psychology, 107, 277-281.
HICKS,R. E., GUALTIERI,T. C., & SCHROEDER, S. R. (1983) Cognitive and motor components
of bilateral transfer. American Journal of Psychology, 96, 223-228.
ROSENGREN, K. S., PICK,H . L., & HOFSTEN,C. VON (1988) Role of visual information i n ball
catching. Journal of Motor Behavior, 20, 150-164.
SMYTH,M. M., & MARRIOTT, A. M. (1982) Vision and proprioception in simple catching.
Journal of Motor Behavior, 14, 143-152.
WHITING,H. T. A. (1986) Isn't there a catch in it somewhere? Journal of Motor Behavior, 18,
486-491.
WHITING,H. T. A., SAVELSBERGH, G. J. P., & FABER,C. M. (1988) "Catch" juestions and in-
complete answers. In A . M. Colley & J. R. Beech (Eds.), Cognttion an achon rn skrlled
behaviour. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Pp. 257-271.

Accepted February 4, 1991.