Original research

International Journal of Sports Science

& Coaching
A biomechanical comparison of different 2022, Vol. 17(3) 599–608
! The Author(s) 2021
baseball batting training methods Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17479541211036232
journals.sagepub.com/home/spo

Wei-Han Chen1,2 , Yu-Cheng Chiu1, Chiang Liu2,

Ming-Sheng Chan3, Nicholas J Fiolo1 and Tzyy-Yuang Shiang1

Abstract
This study compared the kinematic parameters of swing mechanics under toss batting (TB), motor imagery (MI), video
projection (VP), and virtual reality (VR) conditions during baseball batting. Nine college baseball players performed three
swings to hit a tossed ball under TB conditions or a virtual ball under MI, VP, and VR conditions. The results revealed
that upper trunk backward rotation was smaller in the loading phase under the VP and VR conditions than under the TB
and MI conditions and lower under VR than under the VP condition (p < 0.05) except at the load event. Pelvic backward
rotation was smaller under the VR condition than under the TB, MI, and VP conditions (p < 0.05). In the swing phase, TB
demonstrated higher peak velocity at the head of the bat, lead elbow extension, and pelvis and upper trunk rotation than
did MI, VP, and VR, whereas VP also demonstrated higher peak velocity in pelvic forward rotation than did VR (p < 0.05).
In summary, VR demonstrates a more realistic response in the loading phase and reduced pelvic backward rotation but
lower movement velocities. Coaches should pay attention to movement differences between swing conditions when
arranging a swing training plan.

Keywords
Dry swing, hitting, kinematics, motion analysis, perceptual-motor skill, posture, simulation, virtual reality

Introduction their perceptual-motor skills, which transfer to real

There is growing interest in utilizing virtual environ-
ments (VEs) in the context of sports.1–6 A key assump-
tion in VE training is that the learned skills and
experiences can be transferred to the real world.7,8 In
recent years, many studies have confirmed the effective-
ness of the learned skills and experience in VE training
transferring to improvement in real sports perfor-
mance.3,8–11 In baseball, VEs have been integrated
into batting practice in professional and amateur play-
ers. VEs can be presented on two-dimensional or omni-
directional videos by recording real-world locations or
reproducing an actual baseball environment through
construction of a same-scale replica.4 By capturing or
constructing different situations, batters can perform
multiple forms of simulation training to become famil-
iar with an array of different pitching and situational
conditions. Additionally, VE can analyze the batter’s
swing and provide real-time results in a simulated
image. By providing such modifiable situations and
estimated feedback, VE may help batters improve
baseball batting.3
Gray3 investigated the transfer of batting
perceptual-motor skills trained in two different VE
programs (adaptive training and simulated training)
to real baseball batting performance. In the adaptive
VE training, the task difficulty was matched to the
performer’s skill level. The investigators found that
the adaptive VE training group showed significantly
Reviewers: Annabelle Limballe (University of Rennes, France)
Cody Lindsday (University of Canberra, Australia)
1
Department of Athletic Performance, National Taiwan Normal
University, Taipei
2
Graduate Institute of Sports Equipment Technology, University of Taipei,
Taipei
3
San Francisco Giants Baseball Club, San Francisco, CA, USA
Corresponding author:
Tzyy-Yuang Shiang, Department of Athletic Performance, National
Taiwan Normal University, No. 88, Sec. 4, Ting-Zhou Rd., Taipei City
11677.
Email: tyshiang@gmail.com
600
greater improvement in the performance measures
from pre-training to post-training compared with the
other groups (batting practice in the VE, real batting
practice, and a control condition). It was suggested that
training in a VE can be used to improve real, on-field
performance, especially when VE is implemented to
provide a simulation of appropriate challenge (e.g.,
adaptive training), as opposed to simply recreating
the visual experience of a real training situation.
A certain threshold of specificity is needed to effec-
tively transfer VE-based training to real-world applica-
tion, both in terms of the perceptual experience and
utilized motor patterns. The VE should allow the learn-
er to produce movements similar to those required in
the real-world setting.1 This consideration influences
the technology and method of VE training. Virtual
reality-based (VR) VE with a head-mounted display
(HMD) presents omnidirectional images to the user,
creating a more immersive perceptual experience than
those using a PC monitor, video projection (VP), or
cave automatic virtual. However, wearing an HMD
may have negative effects on mechanics for users per-
forming sport-specific tasks due to a limited field of
view, latency, and added weight.12 These factors
could result in unnatural scene13 and head motion,14
which ultimately inhibit the performance in real sport-
ing tasks.12 To our knowledge, the effects of wearing an
HMD on batting mechanics have not yet been
investigated.
In addition to VR-based training, coaches common-
ly use other forms of skill training for batting develop-
ment, such as live batting, psychological-based, and
VP-based VE practice. A common type of live batting
practice is toss batting (TB), in which a trainer tosses a
baseball from a short distance for a batter to hit.
Batters receive haptic (bat vibration) and audio feed-
back from the bat–ball impact and visual feedback
from the flight of the batted ball to understand the
performance of the swing.15 This feedback ultimately
enables a batter to adjust swing mechanics and improve
future performance.15 Motor imagery (MI) is a form of
psychological-based practice, in which a batter envi-
sions all of the details of receiving and hitting a pitch
with closed eyes.16 MI often includes the batter actually
swinging a real bat (dry swing) while imaging hitting
the ball. MI has been demonstrated to improve sports
performance,17 including hitting performance.16
VP-based VE is similar to the above mentioned VR
training, but uses a video projector instead of an
HMD. VP-based VE is also often used with a dry
swing. Given the differences in demands placed on
the batter with each practice type, it is possible that
each practice type will result in differences in swing
mechanics. Understanding these differences may
allow for more precise use of practice type to emphasize
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 17 (3 )
certain aspects of batting mechanics and better opti-
mize transfer of training to game performance.
The purpose of this investigation was to examine the
effects of skill training modality (VR, VP, MI, and TB)
on bat swing kinematics. We hypothesized that the
batters would appear to use a more realistic behaviour
in the loading phase under VR and VP conditions when
swinging at a virtual pitched ball compared to swinging
without a real pitcher or specific image under TB and
MI practice conditions. Moreover, VR may have a
greater negative effect on swing velocity than using
VP-based practice, due to additional HMD. The find-
ings of this study may more completely describe the
relationship between practice type and resulting swing
mechanics, providing coaches and players with infor-
mation for evidence-based practice to select the appro-
priate swing drills to best improve batting mechanics.
Methods
Participants
Nine Taiwanese collegiate Division I and II male base-
ball players (age: 20.4
1.4 years; baseball training
duration: 11.2
2.2 years; height: 178.6
4.7 cm;
body mass: 84.8
13.3 kg) participated in this study.
All participants reported no injuries in the previous
6 months and completed a regular training program
consisting of baseball practice three times per week
and strength and conditioning training twice per
week. All participants were right-handed batters. No
participants reported dizziness when wearing the
head-mounted VR displays. This study was approved
by the Institutional Review Board at National Taiwan
Normal University.
Procedures
Swing conditions. Prior to the experiment, participants
perform a standardized warm-up consisting of jogging,
dynamic stretching, and dry swings. Participants
jogged on a treadmill for 3 minutes at 9 kilometres
per hour. After the jogging, participants completed
their typical dynamic stretching routine. Next, partic-
ipants completed a specific warm-up consisting of 5 dry
swings, increasing in intensity, with the testing bat. The
dry swings were followed by 5 warm-up swings hitting
a tossed ball into a net. After the standardized warm-
up, each participant conducted swings under TB, MI,
VP, and VR practice conditions in a random order
(Figure 1). Three successful trials were recorded for
each practice condition. Each participant completed
all testing conditions within 24 hours. The same
wooden bat (length 860 mm, weight 895 g) was used
for all testing conditions.
Chen et al. 601

Figure 1. Participants performed swings under TB, MI, VP, and VR conditions. For the TB condition, a trainer standing diagonally
opposite the participant tossed a baseball into a middle location and the participant hit the ball. For the MI condition, participants
closed their eyes and listened to an audio recording that described the pitcher and pitching situation prior to hitting, then to imagine
the scenario using the first-person perspective and perform a baseball swing. For the VP condition, participants watched the videos
projected on a wall and performed a baseball swing. For the VR condition, participants wore an HMD to watch the omnidirectional
videos and perform a baseball swing.

For the TB condition, a trainer standing diagonally
opposite the participant tossed a baseball into a middle
location and the participant hit the ball (Figure 2). If
the participant felt that the location or batting move-
ment was not ideal, the trial was determined to be a
failure. The test was terminated when three satisfactory
tests had been completed.
For the MI condition, participants listened to an
audio recording that described the pitcher and pitching
situation prior to hitting. The participants were
instructed to use the first-person perspective (to be con-
sistent with the TB, VP, and VR conditions) and to
imagine the scenario as vividly and clearly as possible.
The content of the audio recording was as follows:
“Close your eyes. See yourself holding the bat in your
hands. You are in the batter’s box. Take a deep breath
in . . . and exhale. You pick the bat up off your shoulder.
Now, the pitcher is ready to pitch. The pitcher winds up,
strides forward, swings the arm, and throws the ball.
You see the ball clearly and it is a 100-km/h straight
ball in the middle. Now, start the swing.”
For the VP and VR conditions, a 360-degree 2 D video
was captured in advance using a Nikon KeyMission
360 4 K action camera (3840  1920 pixels and 24
fps). The video was captured in an outdoor batting
cage. In the video, a pitcher throws a 100-km/h straight
ball in the middle of the hitting zone. The camera was
installed inside the batter’s box at a height of 155 cm,
which is the height of the average participant’s eyes
when setting up to hit. All feedback (haptic, audio,
and video) of ball contact was omitted for both VR
and VP conditions.
For the VP condition, the 2 D videos (Figure 3) were
projected on a wall (180-cm wide). The participants
stood 5 m from the wall to perform a baseball swing.
The environment was commonly used by the
participants for personal preparation before or during
a game.
For the VR condition, omnidirectional videos
(Figure 3) were presented using an HMD (VIVE,
HTC Corporation, Taoyuan City, Taiwan).
Participants could freely change the point of view by
turning their heads. The horizontal field of view of the
HMD was 110 , and the refresh rate was fixed at
90 Hz/eye. All participants completed a VR familiari-
zation session prior to the experiment to receive expo-
sure to the device’s weight and appearance.
Measurements. A 10-camera motion capture system
(Vicon., Oxford Metrics Limited, United Kingdom)
was used to capture marker positions on a participant’s
body and a bat at a sampling rate of 250 Hz. Thirty-six
reflective markers were placed on the participant’s skin
on the basis of the Plug-in Gait full body model. Five
reflective markers were placed on both sides of the
head, the center of mass, upside of the grip, and
bottom of the baseball bat. All participants were
asked to grip the bat handle at the proximal end and
assume their habitual batting stance.18 Vicon Nexus
2.10.1. software was used for data recording, post-
processing of the data, which included the marker
labelling, reconstruction, and analyses of kinematic
parameters. Marker data was filtered with a 4th order
low-pass Butterworth filter with a cut off frequency
of 6 Hz.
The swing movement was divided into four phases
(loading, stride, swing, and follow through) based on
five crucial events (stance, load, foot contact, peak bat
velocity, and follow through) of the swing process. The
definitions of these crucial events were modified from
those outlined by Dowling and Fleisig.19 Stance was
identified as the last frame before the batter started
to move his pelvis in the negative global X direction
(from pitcher’s plate to the home plate). Load was
602
Figure 2. Swing posture at the load event under the TB, MI, VP, and VR conditions. The arrow indicates the direction of the head.
A trainer stands diagonally opposite the participant to toss a baseball for hitting under TB condition. The batters need to rotate their
heads toward the pitcher to look at his movement and the ball under VR and VP conditions, which is different in the TB and MI
conditions.
Figure 3. The pitcher video was used in the VP and VR con-
ditions. The pitcher pitches a 100-km/h straight ball in the
middle. The camera was installed inside the batter’s box at a
height of 155 cm, which is the height of the average participant’s
eyes when setting up to hit.
established as the frame in which the batter’s pelvis
reached its maximum displacement in the negative
global X direction. Foot contact was defined as the
first frame in which the lead toe or heel reached the
minimum global Z direction (vertical direction). Peak
bat velocity was determined as the frame in which the
bat head marker reached its highest velocity. Follow
through was identified as the frame in which the lead
elbow was at its maximum extension. The four phases
of swing movement were defined by the five events.
The loading phase was identified as the phase from
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 17 (3 )
stance to load. The stride phase was that from load
to foot contact. The swing phase was that from foot
contact to ball contact. The follow through phase was
that from ball contact to follow through.
The swing kinematic parameters reported in this
study were based on those by Dowling and Fleisig.19
The elbow flexion, back arm abduction, upper trunk
rotation and flexion, pelvic and hip rotation, and knee
flexion angle were calculated and extracted at the times
of the five crucial events. Pelvic rotation was defined as
0 when the pelvis was aligned with the global X direc-
tion and 90 when the anterior pelvis faced the pitcher
(global Y). The duration of the four swing phases and
peak velocity of the bat head, elbow extension, knee
extension, pelvis rotation, and upper trunk rotation
were calculated. The average of three trials was used
for statistical analysis.
Statistical analyses
All data are expressed as the mean and standard devi-
ation. IBM SPSS 23.0 statistical software was
employed to perform one-way analysis of variance
with repeated measures to assess the differences
between the four swing conditions. The partial eta
squared (g2p ) as a measure of effect size and observed
power was also calculated. Bonferroni’s method was
adopted for post hoc tests (a ¼ 0.05). The level of sig-
nificance was defined as a ¼ 0.05.
Chen et al.
Results
Table 1 shows the swing postures at each event under
different conditions. The main effects of each condition
were observed in the 1) pelvic rotation and upper trunk
rotation in the stance and load events (p < 0.01,
g2p ¼ 0.565–0.825, OP ¼ 0.925–1.000), 2) lead elbow
flexion, back elbow flexion, and back knee flexion in
the foot contact event (p < 0.05, g2p ¼ 0.311–0.497,
OP ¼ 0.722–0.975), 3) lead elbow flexion, back elbow
flexion, lead knee flexion, and upper trunk rotation in
the peak bat velocity event (p < 0.05, g2p ¼ 0.326–0.602,
OP ¼ 0.754–0.999), and 4) lead elbow flexion, back
elbow flexion, and lead knee flexion in the follow through
event (p < 0.05, g2p ¼ 0.362–0.673, OP ¼ 0.824–0.990).
Post hoc analysis revealed statistically significant
differences in posture kinematics between training
modalities during the loading phase. The rotation
angle in the upper trunk was significantly larger in
VP and VR than under TB and MI (p < 0.05) and
was also significantly larger in VR than in VP
(p < 0.05), except at load. Rotation angle of the pelvis
was significantly larger in VR than in TB, MI, and VP
(p < 0.05). At foot contact, the lead elbow flexion and
back elbow flexion were significantly larger in TB than
in MI, and the back elbow flexion was larger in VR
than in MI (p < 0.05). At peak bat velocity, both lead
elbow flexion and back elbow flexion in TB were sig-
nificantly larger than in MI and VP, while only lead
elbow flexion was significantly larger in TB than in VR
(p < 0.05). Lead knee flexion in TB and VP was smaller
than in MI (p < 0.05). The upper trunk rotation in MI
was smaller than in VP (p < 0.05). Lead knee flexion at
follow through was significantly smaller in TB than in
MI, VP, and VR, as well as significantly smaller in VP
compared to VR (p < 0.05).
Table 2 shows the duration of each swing phase. The
main effect of each condition was observed in the dura-
tion between load and foot contact (p < 0.05), but no
significant difference was discovered among the condi-
tions post hoc.
Table 3 shows the peak velocity of the bat head,
elbow and knee extension, and pelvis and upper
trunk rotation. Bat head velocity, pelvis rotation, and
upper trunk rotation were significantly higher in TB
than in MI, VP and VR (p < 0.01, g2p ¼ 0.754–0.827,
OP ¼ 1.000). Pelvic rotation peak velocity was higher
in VP than in VR (p < 0.05).
Discussion
The primary finding of this study was that practice
condition influenced the bat swing kinematics.
Backward rotation was smaller (more toward the pitch-
er’s direction) in the loading phase in VR and VP bat
603
swinging than TB and MI swinging. Further, upper
trunk backward rotation was smaller in VR swinging
than in VP swinging. Additionally, pelvic backward
rotation in VR was smaller than that in all other prac-
tice conditions. Moreover, TB practice resulted in
greater movement velocity—including pelvic and
upper trunk rotation, and bat head linear velocity
than those in MI, VP and VR during the swing
phase. In contrast, VR practice resulted in lower for-
ward rotation velocity in the pelvis than did VP.
Similarly, in the follow through, the lead knee was
more extended in TB than in MI, VP, and VR and
more extended in VP than in VR. These results
indicate that VR caused a different posture in the load-
ing phase—one more toward the direction of the
pitcher—but also caused lower movement velocity
during the swing phase.
Baseball players may improve batting mechanics
through swing practice under real batting, MI, and
VE conditions.3,16 However, these practice types have
different advantages and limitations in consideration to
the type of feedback they provide, the level difficulty of
faced to implement it in practice, and the degree to
which game realism is simulated. TB has the advantage
of providing direct haptic, audio, and visual feedback
from hitting a real ball, which helps the batter to
appropriately adjust batting mechanics and ultimately
improve subsequent performance.15 However, this
training method requires the assistance of a trainer
and the trajectory and speed of a tossed ball differ
from a pitched ball. The advantage of MI is that it
does not require additional trainers and equipment.
The disadvantage of MI is that the specific imagery
varies between batters because of differences in individ-
ual experiences, motor skill level, imagery abilities, and
imagery preferences.20,21 VE provides the specific
images of a pitcher and a pitched ball for batters, and
allowed batters to perform a more realistic response in
the loading phase in this study; however, it lacks real
hitting feedback. Compared to VP, VR is a more
immersive visual experience because of the added
HMD. However, our results showed that using an
HMD had a negative effect on swing velocity.
Therefore, the advantages and disadvantages of each
practice type should be evaluated within the goals and
larger context of the skill training.
The type and location of observation targets and
points of attentional focus during batting may impact
the resulting kinematics. In baseball, the batters need to
look at the pitcher’s movement22,23 and track the ball
trajectory using head rotation and eye movement,24,25
as the ball moves from the pitching mound to the bat-
ter’s box. In contrast, how a batter receives a ball to hit
during different batting practice types may vary and
result less game realistic kinematics. For example,
604 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 17 (3 )

Table 1. Swing posture at each event under different conditions (mean
SD).

TB MI VP VR p g2p OP Post hoc

Stance
Lead elbow flexion ( ) 79 (
11) 83 (
9) 80 (
12) 81 (
11) 0.195 0.174 0.383 –
Back elbow flexion ( ) 111 (
13) 112 (
15) 112 (
13) 114 (
12) 0.578 0.077 0.170 –
Back arm abduction ( ) 59 (
22) 60 (
27) 63 (
28) 69 (
22) 0.125 0.209 0.472 –
Lead knee flexion ( ) 20 (
15) 20 (
18) 28 (
13) 24 (
12) 0.181 0.194 0.328 –
Back knee flexion ( ) 33 (
14) 32 (
22) 36 (
15) 35 (
14) 0.543 0.064 0.114 –
Lead hip internal rotation ( ) 19 (
16) 19 (
19) 23 (
18) 23 (
20) 0.008 0.381 0.756 –
Back hip internal rotation ( ) 22 (
9) 21 (
11) 21 (
9) 20 (
8) 0.765 0.046 0.115 –
Pelvic rotation ( ) 15 (
8) 12 (
7) 10 (
5) 3 (
6) 0.000* 0.685 1.000 TB,MI,VP < VR
Upper trunk rotation ( ) 18 (
9) 14 (
8) 7 (
4) 3 (
5) 0.000* 0.852 1.000 TB,MI < VP < VR
Upper trunk flexion ( ) 11 (
11) 13 (
10) 16 (
8) 15 (
7) 0.057 0.265 0.613 –
Load
Lead elbow flexion ( ) 79 (
9) 80 (
8) 78 (
10) 78 (
10) 0.403 0.113 0.241 –
Back elbow flexion ( ) 119 (
11) 118 (
12) 119 (
12) 122 (
11) 0.089 0.234 0.535 –
Back arm abduction ( ) 71 (
12) 75 (
17) 74 (
18) 76 (
17) 0.264 0.153 0.266 –
Lead knee flexion ( ) 52 (
22) 52 (
19) 57 (
18) 57 (
18) 0.388 0.116 0.249 –
Back knee flexion ( ) 40 (
15) 39 (
17) 42 (
16) 41 (
14) 0.344 0.127 0.273 –
Lead hip internal rotation ( ) 35 (
18) 37 (
21) 39 (
19) 38 (
20) 0.243 0.157 0.343 –
Back hip internal rotation ( ) 24 (
11) 23 (
9) 23 (
9) 22 (
9) 0.517 0.089 0.192 –
Pelvic rotation ( ) 27 (
13) 22 (
9) 17 (
5) 12 (
6) 0.003* 0.565 0.925 TB,MI,VP < VR
Upper trunk rotation ( ) 32 (
11) 27 (
7) 16 (
4) 5 (
7) 0.000* 0.814 1.000 TB,MI < VP,VR
Upper trunk flexion ( ) 20 (
8) 20 (
7) 22 (
7) 20 (
6) 0.258 0.155 0.275 –
Foot contact
Lead elbow flexion ( ) 71 (
8) 66 (
7) 65 (
8) 66 (
8) 0.028* 0.311 0.722 TB > MI
Back elbow flexion ( ) 116 (
8) 109 (
8) 113 (
9) 117 (
9) 0.001* 0.497 0.975 TB,VR > MI
Back arm abduction ( ) 34 (
19) 30 (
17) 31 (
13) 30 (
17) 0.810 0.039 0.103 –
Lead knee flexion ( ) 26 (
14) 28 (
16) 27 (
14) 27 (
13) 0.677 0.060 0.139 –
Back knee flexion ( ) 38 (
14) 31 (
17) 34 (
14) 31 (
14) 0.019* 0.335 0.773 –
Lead hip internal rotation ( ) 27 (
13) 30 (
18) 27 (
14) 29 (
16) 0.385 0.105 0.157 –
Back hip internal rotation ( ) 13 (
9) 9 (
11) 12 (
9) 11 (
9) 0.099 0.226 0.516 –
Pelvic rotation ( ) 25 (
11) 29 (
17) 26 (
6) 31 (
15) 0.684 0.059 0.137 –
Upper trunk rotation ( ) 6 (
18) 16 (
22) 14 (
12) 23 (
17) 0.073 0.248 0.570 –
Upper trunk flexion ( ) 22 (
7) 21 (
6) 22 (
5) 22 (
4) 0.858 0.031 0.091 –
Bat peak velocity
Lead elbow flexion ( ) 57 (
5) 45 (
8) 47 (
7) 48 (
7) 0.000* 0.602 0.999 TB > MI,VP,VR
Back elbow flexion ( ) 84 (
5) 71 (
11) 76 (
7) 76 (
11) 0.002* 0.450 0.934 TB > MI,VP
Back arm abduction ( ) 10 (
6) 11 (
7) 10 (
7) 11 (
6) 0.836 0.034 0.096 –
Lead knee flexion ( ) 12 (
7) 19 (
11) 15 (
9) 16 (
11) 0.000* 0.536 0.990 TB,VP < MI
Back knee flexion ( ) 34 (
15) 30 (
17) 33 (
16) 28 (
16) 0.022* 0.326 0.754 –
Lead hip internal rotation ( ) 29 (
19) 31 (
21) 29 (
20) 30 (
21) 0.560 0.064 0.117 –
Back hip internal rotation ( ) 1 (
10) 1 (
11) 2 (
12) 1 (
9) 0.234 0.160 0.349 –
Pelvic rotation ( ) 75 (
13) 70 (
10) 74 (
9) 73 (
13) 0.143 0.199 0.447 –
Upper trunk rotation ( ) 76 (
11) 75 (
9) 80 (
7) 83 (
11) 0.014* 0.353 0.809 MI < VP
Upper trunk flexion ( ) 25 (
6) 24 (
3) 26 (
2) 25 (
3) 0.703 0.032 0.079 –
Follow through
Lead elbow flexion ( ) 39 (
13) 34 (
7) 33 (
7) 34 (
8) 0.047* 0.362 0.824 –
Back elbow flexion ( ) 46 (
10) 41 (
9) 41 (
9) 40 (
8) 0.002* 0.458 0.834 –
Back arm abduction ( ) 18 (
8) 16 (
10) 19 (
10) 15 (
9) 0.165 0.188 0.419 –
Lead knee flexion ( ) 4 (
8) 15 (
11) 9 (
10) 11 (
11) 0.004* 0.673 0.990 TB < MI,VP,VR
VP < VR
Back knee flexion ( ) 30 (
15) 29 (
16) 31 (
15) 26 (
16) 0.134 0.204 0.459 –
Lead hip internal rotation ( ) 29 (
19) 30 (
21) 29 (
21) 30 (
21) 0.715 0.054 0.128 –
Back hip internal rotation ( ) 1 (
10) 2 (
11) 0 (
11) 1 (
9) 0.537 0.085 0.184 –
Pelvic rotation ( ) 82 (
11) 75 (
8) 81 (
8) 79 (
14) 0.095 0.230 0.525 –
Upper trunk rotation ( ) 92 (
7) 86 (
8) 93 (
5) 94 (
12) 0.114 0.216 0.489 –
Upper trunk flexion ( ) 26 (
7) 26 (
3) 28 (
2) 27 (
2) 0.575 0.051 0.094 –
Note: TB ¼ toss batting; MI ¼ motor imagery; VP ¼ video projection; VR ¼ virtual reality; g2p ¼ partial eta squared; OP ¼ observed power.
*p < 0.05.
Chen et al. 605

Table 2. Duration of each swing phase (mean
SD).

TB MI VP VR p g2p OP Post hoc

Loading phase (ms) 136 (
41) 150 (
45) 143 (
31) 149 (
31) 0.803 0.040 0.105 –
Stride phase (ms) 146 (
33) 179 (
34) 161 (
31) 160 (
27) 0.031* 0.305 0.543 –
Swing phase (ms) 24 (
9) 26 (
12) 28 (
6) 28 (
9) 0.481 0.096 0.206 –
Follow-through (ms) 13 (
2) 11 (
5) 13 (
3) 13 (
5) 0.584 0.076 0.168 –
Note: TB ¼ toss batting; MI ¼ motor imagery; VP ¼ video projection; VR¼ virtual reality; g2p ¼ partial eta squared; OP ¼ observed power.
*p < 0.05.

Table 3. Peak velocity in bat, joints, trunk, and pelvis during swing (mean
SD).

TB MI VP VR p g2p OP Post hoc

Bat head velocity (m/s) 32 (
2) 27 (
3) 28 (
2) 27 (
2) 0.000* 0.784 1.000 TB > MI,VP,VR
Lead elbow extension ( /s) 572 (
208) 428 (
119) 439 (
184) 421 (
139) 0.001* 0.493 0.973 –
Back elbow extension ( /s) 975 (
251) 903 (
125) 928 (
99) 949 (
103) 0.514 0.067 0.112 –
Lead knee extension ( /s) 263 (
86) 209 (
63) 242 (
60) 213 (
51) 0.026* 0.340 0.712 –
Back knee extension ( /s) 137 (
56) 127 (
56) 119 (
53) 119 (
55) 0.696 0.057 0.133 –
Pelvis rotation ( /s) 619 (
86) 506 (
59) 528 (
53) 485 (
60) 0.000* 0.754 1.000 TB > MI,VP,VR;VP > VR
Upper trunk rotation ( /s) 827 (
86) 669 (
65) 684 (
66) 625 (
68) 0.000* 0.827 1.000 TB > MI,VP,VR
Note: TB ¼ toss batting; MI ¼ motor imagery; VP ¼ video projection; VR¼ virtual reality; g2p ¼ partial eta squared; OP ¼ observed power.
*p < 0.05.

softball batters tend to reduce trunk backward rotation
in the loading phase when they hit a ball from a front
toss by a pitcher, compared to hitting a ball on a sta-
tionary tee (p < 0.09).26 The batters in this study had a
similar behaviour. In this study, the batters rotated
their upper trunk backward to a lesser degree and
more toward the pitcher in the loading phase in the
VP and VR practice conditions than in TB and MI
practice (p < 0.05). These differences are because that
the batters need to rotate their heads toward the pitcher
to look at their movement and track the ball under VR
and VP conditions, which were not required in the TB
and MI conditions in this study, as showed in Figure 2.
In the TB condition, the batter was only required to
look at the trainer, who stood diagonally opposite to
the batter. This configuration of TB practice caused
more backward rotation in the batter and differs
from the rotation displayed when hitting a ball
thrown by a pitcher. Despite the fact that the partic-
ipants were instructed to use a first-person view (to
mimic game-realistic observational targets and atten-
tional focus of receiving a ball from a pitcher), MI
appeared to result in a similar kinematic phenomenon
as observed in TB. However, the batters were not
required to rotate their head to actually look at the
imagined pitcher. Therefore, compared with the TB
and MI swing conditions, VR created changes in
mechanics that were more in line with actual game sit-
uations in the loading phase, since batters needed to
look at the pitcher in their lateral direction. However,
the loading phase results also revealed that backward
rotation of the upper trunk was smaller in the VR than
in VP (p < 0.05) practice conditions, except at the load
event. Moreover, the backward rotation of the pelvis in
VR practice condition was also lower than that in TB,
MI, and VP (p < 0.05). These differences could be due
to the restricted field of view (horizontal ¼ 110 ) of the
HMD and the batter’s need to rotate their head more
toward the pitcher. Whether this restricted field of view
is a characteristic of VR-based practice, in general, or is
limited to this specific HMD device should be a point
of future research.
This study showed that the peak velocities of the bat
head, pelvic rotation, and upper trunk rotation in TB
were higher than that in MI, VP, and VR (p < 0.05).
The differences in velocities may be caused by different
hitting point target positions between all four practice
modalities. Non-controlled hitting point positions is a
is a limitation of this study. Previous studies reported
that pelvis rotation and peak bat-head speed change if
the hitting point height is altered.27,28 Additionally, a
difference in hitting point also affects the batter’s lead
elbow angle.29,30 The results of this study revealed dif-
ferences in both elbow angles in TB, MI, VP, and VR
in both the swing and follow through phases (foot con-
tact to follow through; p < 0.05). However, we found
no difference in elbow angle in the swing and follow
through phases between the VP and VR conditions.
Overall, elbows were more flexed in TB than in MI,
VP and VR, and elbows were more flexed in MI than
606
in VP and VR. Although the target position of the ball
was set to the middle in this study, there could have
been a small difference in ball positioning across all
practice types.
The results of this study showed that kinematic dif-
ference may exists between VE-based training modali-
ties. The peak pelvis angular velocity in VR was lower
than those achieved in VP (p < 0.05). This finding could
be due to the nonvisual feedback of the real environ-
ment under VR conditions. Although the HMD field of
view moved concurrently with head movement, tempo-
ral and spatial differences do exist between VR and
real-world conditions due to motion-to-photon latency,
the accuracy of head tracking, and the restricted field
of view. These differences may influence a batter’s
pelvis rotation mechanics. The visual system is the pri-
mary sensory system involved in maintaining postural
balance.31,32 Impairment to vision has a detrimental
consequence on balance for all two-legged stance
tasks.33 Moreover, wearing an HMD may impair bal-
ance ability because of the additional weight of the
device and a restricted field of view.12 Such vision
restrictions may impair the posture stability of batters
and limit the velocity of body rotation. Therefore, VR
may have a negative effect on rotation movement
velocity in the swing phase. If the objective of the base-
ball practice is to develop or perfect the swing velocity
via VE-based training, VP is a more suitable modality
than VR.
The present study demonstrated that the lead knee
at the follow through event was more extended in TB
than in MI, VP, and VR, and lead knee was also more
extended in VP than in VR (p < 0.05). These findings
follow a similar trend to that found in our analysis of
movement velocity. This postural change may have
been related to increased swing velocity. Escamilla
et al.34 indicated that extending the lead knee helps to
“brace” and stabilize the body as the pelvis and trunk
rotate and upper extremities move forward during the
act of swinging a baseball bat. This stabilization helps
to facilitate pelvis and trunk rotation and increase the
bat head’s linear velocity.
This study has several limitations. First, hitting
point location and ball trajectory and velocity were
not identical between practice types. Specifically, par-
ticipants in the TB condition actually hit a ball tossed
by a trainer, but performed a dry swing to hit a simu-
lated pitched ball in video or imaginary form in the MI,
VR, and VP conditions. These differences in task
requirements may have caused the differences observed
in swing kinematics. Therefore, it is unknown whether
the practice type, per se, or the overall task require-
ments are the main influential factors of resulting
swing mechanics. One could speculate that changes to
task requirements (e.g., imagining a curve ball instead
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 17 (3 )
of a straight ball, having a low weight HMD, changing
trainer position in TB) may further change swing
mechanics. This interaction between training type and
methodology of implementation on swing mechanics
should be an area of future research. Second, the
sample size in this study was small, and which increased
the likelihood of type II errors. Third, each batting
condition was only recorded for three successful
trials. A more comprehensive analysis of a realistic
practice session (i.e., many swings over a longer
period of time) may give better understanding to the
long-term ramifications of practice type and changes to
swing kinematics. Finally, future studies should include
more participants with different skill levels to confirm a
potential mediating effect of skill level on the relation-
ship between training type and resulting swing
kinematics.
Conclusion
VR demonstrates a more game realistic response to
reduce backward rotation (more toward the pitcher)
in the loading phase than under the TB and MI con-
ditions, because batters need to look at the pitcher on
their lateral direction. However, the backward rotation
angle was smaller in VR than in VP due to the restrict-
ed field of view of the HMD. Compared with the VP
condition, the impairment to the visual feedback in the
VR condition created negative effects on body rota-
tional movement. Enhancing the capabilities of VR
immersive technology to better mimic the field of
view, latency, head tracking, and feeling of hitting a
real ball may be required to provide the necessary bat-
ting experience to enhance mechanics. Although VR
may have limitations regarding the training of specific
swing mechanics, VR as a training device still may have
meaningful applications to other aspects of athlete
development. For example, the capability of VR to
produce specific simulation may enable batters to
become familiar with various pitchers, pitching styles,
and ball types that may be difficult or impossible to
replicate on the field or in the imagination.
Practical applications
If the objective of sport-specific training is to develop
or perfect batting technical skills under simulated con-
ditions, MI, VP, and VR are suitable approaches. VR
allows a more realistic response in the loading phase
but is not appropriate for practice in which the objec-
tive is to improve the maximum swing speed. VP is a
better option to improve maximum swing speed com-
pared to VR. During TB, a batter can receive haptic
(bat vibration) and audio feedback from the ball–bat
impact and visual feedback from the flight of the ball
Chen et al.
after it has been hit, which are beneficial to adjusting
movement and improving performance. However, it is
difficult to simulate different situations—such as differ-
ent pitchers, pitching styles, and balls—using this tech-
nique. Players and coaches should clarify the objective
before training and pay attention to the differences in
movement caused by different training conditions.
Ethics Statement
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board
at National Taiwan Normal University.
Declaration of conflicting iInterests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This work was financially supported by the National
Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) from the Higher
Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education
(MOE) in Taiwan.
ORCID iDs
Wei-Han Chen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4742-587X
Tzyy-Yuang Shiang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1641-
3091
References
1. Miles HC, Pop SR, Watt SJ, et al. A review of virtual
environments for training in ball sports. Comput Graph
2012; 36: 714–726.
2. Thomas JS, France CR, Applegate ME, et al. Effects of
visual display on joint excursions used to play virtual
dodgeball. JMIR Serious Games 2016; 4: e16.
3. Gray R. Transfer of training from virtual to real baseball
batting. Front Psychol 2017; 8: 2183.
4. Isogawa M, Mikami D, Fukuda T, et al. What can VR
systems tell sports players? Reaction-based analysis of
baseball batters in virtual and real worlds. In: 2018
IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces,
Reutlingen, Germany, 18–22 March 2018, pp.587–588.
Piscataway: IEEE.
5. Zaal FT and Bootsma RJ. Virtual reality as a tool for the
study of perception-action: the case of running to catch
fly balls. Presence: Teleoper Virtual Environ 2011; 20:
93–103.
6. Faure C, Limballe A, Bideau B, et al. Virtual reality to
assess and train team ball sports performance: a scoping
review. J Sports Sci 2020; 38: 192–205.
7. Rose FD, Attree EA, Brooks BM, et al. Training in vir-
tual environments: transfer to real world tasks and equiv-
alence to real task training. Ergonomics 2000; 43:
494–511.
607
8. Michalski SC, Szpak A, Saredakis D, et al. Getting your
game on: using virtual reality to improve real table tennis
skills. PLoS One 2019; 14: e0222351.
9. Page C, Bernier P-M and Trempe M. Using video
simulations and virtual reality to improve decision-
making skills in basketball. J Sports Sci 2019; 37:
2403–2410.
10. Petri K, Emmermacher P, Danneberg M, et al. Training
using virtual reality improves response behavior in
Karate Kumite. Sports Eng 2019; 22: 2.
11. Panchuk D, Klusemann MJ and Hadlow SM. Exploring
the effectiveness of immersive video for training decision-
making capability in elite, youth basketball players. Front
Psychol 2018; 9: 2315.
12. Almajid R, Tucker C, Keshner E, et al. Effects of wearing
a head-mounted display during a standard clinical test of
dynamic balance. Gait Posture 2021; 85: 78–83.
13. Jerald J and Whitton M. Relating scene-motion thresh-
olds to latency thresholds for head-mounted displays. In:
2009 IEEE virtual reality conference. Piscataway: IEEE,
2009, pp.211–218.
14. Knight JF and Baber C. Effect of head-mounted displays
on posture. Hum Factors 2007; 49: 797–807.
15. Gray R. How do batters use visual, auditory, and tactile
information about the success of a baseball swing? Res Q
Exerc Sport 2009; 80: 491–501.
16. Neuman B and Gray R. A direct comparison of the
effects of imagery and action observation on hitting per-
formance. Mov Sport Sci Sci Mot 2013; 79: 11–21.
17. Driskell JE, Copper C and Moran A. Does mental prac-
tice enhance performance? J Appl Psychol 1994; 79:
481–492.
18. Yang WW, Liu YC, Chen WH, et al. Hitting weighted
baseball enhances the experience of bat-ball contacts.
Sports Biomech. Epub ahead of print 4 March 2021.
DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2021.1890196.
19. Dowling B and Fleisig GS. Kinematic comparison of
baseball batting off of a tee among various competition
levels. Sports Biomech 2016; 15: 255–269.
20. Munzert J and Hackfort D. Individual preconditions for
mental training. Int J Sport Psychol 1999; 30: 41–62.
21. Munzert J and Lorey B. Motor and visual imagery in
sports. In: Lacey S and Lawson R (eds) Multisensory
imagery. New York, NY: Springer, 2013, pp.319–341.
22. Liu YC. Comparison of visual tracking strategy during
hitting between different skilled baseball players. Chin J
Sports Biomech 2015; 12: 32–38.
23. Liu YC. Analysis of visual tracking strategy during hit-
ting in baseball players. Chin J Sports Biomech 2015; 12:
32–38.
24. Fogt NF and Zimmerman AB. A method to monitor eye
and head tracking movements in college baseball players.
Optom Vis Sci 2014; 91: 200–211.
25. Kishita Y, Ueda H and Kashino M. Eye and head move-
ments of elite baseball players in real batting. Front
Sports Act Living 2020; 2: 3–10.
26. Washington J and Oliver G. Kinematic differences
between hitting off a tee versus front toss in collegiate
softball players. Int Biomech 2018; 5: 30–35.
608
27. Iino Y, Fukushima A and Kojima T. Pelvic rotation
torque during fast-pitch softball hitting under three ball
height conditions. J Appl Biomech 2014; 30: 563–573.
28. Ae K, Koike S and Kawamura T. Kinetic function of the
lower limbs during baseball tee-batting motion at differ-
ent hitting-point heights. Sports Biomech 2020; 19:
452–466.
29. Katsumata H, Himi K, Ino T, et al. Coordination
of hitting movement revealed in baseball tee-batting.
J Sports Sci 2017; 35: 2468–2480.
30. Tago T, Ae M, Tsuchioka D, et al. Kinematic analysis of
the upper limb at different impact heights in baseball
batting. In: 27th international conference on biomechanics
in sports, Limerick, Ireland, 17–21 August, 2009.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 17 (3 )
31. Grace Gaerlan M, Alpert PT, Cross C, et al. Postural
balance in young adults: the role of visual, vestibular
and somatosensory systems. J Am Acad Nurse Pract
2012; 24: 375–381.
32. Chen YW and Chen YH. The relation between sports
vision and performance. J Sports Perform 2: 7–12.
33. Allum JHJ, Adkin AL, Carpenter MG, et al. Trunk sway
measures of postural stability during clinical balance
tests: effects of a unilateral vestibular deficit. Gait
Posture 2001; 14: 227–237.
34. Escamilla RF, Fleisig GS, DeRenne C, et al. A compar-
ison of age level on baseball hitting kinematics. J Appl
Biomech 2009; 25: 210–218.
Copyright of International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching is the property of Sage
Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.