VU Research Portal

Review: Sport Performance and the Two-visual-system Hypothesis of Vision

Mann, D.L.; Fortin-Guichard, D.; Nakamoto, H.

published in
Optometry and Vision Science
2021

DOI (link to publisher)

10.1097/OPX.0000000000001739

document version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

document license
Article 25fa Dutch Copyright Act

Link to publication in VU Research Portal

citation for published version (APA)

Mann, D. L., Fortin-Guichard, D., & Nakamoto, H. (2021). Review: Sport Performance and the Two-visual-
system Hypothesis of Vision: Two Pathways but Still Many Questions. Optometry and Vision Science, 98(7),
696-703. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001739

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.

E-mail address:
vuresearchportal.ub@vu.nl

Download date: 16. oct. 2023

 INVITED REVIEW

Review: Sport Performance and the Two-visual-system Hypothesis of

Vision: Two Pathways but Still Many Questions
David L. Mann, PhD, MBA,1* Daniel Fortin-Guichard, PhD,1 and Hiroki Nakamoto, PhD2

SIGNIFICANCE: The two-visual-system hypothesis (TVSH) provides a framework for understanding the nature of
the visual information athletes are likely to rely on during competition. If valid, the framework provides a valuable
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/optvissci by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 03/10/2022

means of evaluating the likely efficacy of different vision training tools that claim to improve the sport performance
of athletes.
The TVSH has been used to explain that many of the existing methods of testing and training vision may be inef-
fective to improve on-field sport performance. The TVSH suggests that the visual pathway used to control actions
on-field may be different—and rely on different visual information—to the pathway often tested and trained off-
field. However, the central claims of the TVSH are increasingly questioned, and this has implications for our under-
standing of vision and sport performance. The aim of this article is to outline the implications of the TVSH for the
visual control of actions in sport. We first provide a summary of the TVSH and outline how the visual information
used to control actions might differ from that usually tested. Second, we look at the evidence from studies of sports Author Affiliations:
1
that are (and are not) consistent with the TVSH and the implications they have for training vision. Finally, we take a Department of Human Movement
wider look at the impact of the TVSH on the sport sciences and other complementary theories that hold implica- Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and
tions for training vision to improve sport performance. Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement
Sciences and Institute Brain and
Behavior Amsterdam (iBBA),
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
2
Optom Vis Sci 2021;98:696–703. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001739 Faculty of Physical Education, National
Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Optometry Institute of Fitness and Sports in
Kanoya, Kanoya, Japan
*d.mann@vu.nl

Vision as most know it—as a phenomenological experience of
our environment—is a relatively recent development in the evolu-
tionary process and might not be the same visual information we
use to control our motor actions. Thirty years ago, neuroscientists
David Milner and Mel Goodale proposed the two-visual-system
hypothesis,1–4 which suggests that the visual brain uses two func-
tionally and neurologically distinct pathways: one to provide a con-
scious visual percept of the surrounding environment and another
for the visual control of actions. Their hypothesis was based on
the idea that the visual brain first evolved for the control of motor
actions and only later developed a more refined ability to generate
a conscious percept of the world. Accordingly, the visual informa-
tion used to guide movements may be more primitive and different
from that which many might expect it to be.
The two-visual-system hypothesis has important implications
for the study of the visual control of movements in sports. Not only
does the hypothesis question the nature of the visual information
that is necessary for optimal sport performance, but it also holds
important implications for the type of training interventions that
are most likely to improve on-field sport performance. However, a
growing number of researchers have questioned the validity of the
two-visual-system hypothesis, and this raises doubt about the ap-
plicability of the hypothesis to the study of the visual control of ac-
tions in sport. The aim of this article is to outline the implications of
the two-visual-system hypothesis for the visual control of actions in
sport. To do so, we first describe the two-visual-system hypothesis
as proposed by Goodale and Milner. Second, we review studies in
the sport sciences that have sought to test the two-visual-system
hypothesis or whose results have been interpreted in light of the hy-
pothesis. Third, we summarize recent criticisms of the two-visual-
system hypothesis and consider other hypotheses that are used in
the sport sciences in addition to or alongside the two-visual-
system hypothesis.
EXPLANATION OF THE TWO-VISUAL-SYSTEM
HYPOTHESIS
Vision is classically viewed as a bottom-up process whereby
light hits the retina and is converted into electrical signals that pass
“upward” via the optic nerves, through to the visual brain in the oc-
cipital lobe, and then onward to other brain areas. However, Milner
and Goodale effectively suggested that vision should be viewed
as a top-down process whereby the type of task being performed
dictates the visual information relied on. According to their two-
visual-system hypothesis, the visual information used when per-
forming an action (vision-for-action) differs from that relied on
when making a perceptual judgment (vision-for-perception). The
hypothesis posits that vision-for-action and vision-for-perception
tasks are mediated by anatomically distinct and functionally spe-
cialized pathways (the dorsal and ventral pathways, respectively)
within the visual cortex.

www.optvissci.com Optom Vis Sci 2021; Vol 98(7) 696

Copyright © American Academy of Optometry. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.


History and Definition
For at least 40 years, it has been known that multiple visual
pathways exist; however, the main conjecture since their discovery
has centered on what might be the role of those two pathways.
Ungerleider and Mishkin5 proposed an initial explanation. They
found that damage to the ventral pathway (in the inferior parietal
cortex) made monkeys unable to discriminate objects of different
shapes, whereas damage to the dorsal pathway (in the posterior pa-
rietal cortex) rendered the monkeys incapable of performing land-
mark identification tasks. The authors interpreted the findings to
mean that the pathways provide a distinction between the process-
ing of attributes associated with object properties (what tasks) and
the object's location (where tasks), respectively.6
Ungerleider and Mishkin's explanation for the two pathways
seemed compelling; however, Milner and Goodale's view resulted
in a reinterpretation. Instead of accepting that the functional differ-
ence was in the processing of object properties (what vs. where),
Milner and Goodale instead proposed that the pathways distinguish
what the information is used for. They proposed that the ventral
vision-for-perception pathway is used for perceptual judgments, in-
cluding the recognition and identification of objects. In addition,
the ventral pathway produces, in conjunction with top-down infor-
mation from visual and semantic memory, a percept of conscious
vision, enabling intentional cognitive operations to be performed
based on a visual representation of the world. In contrast, the dor-
sal vision-for-action pathway is said to be used for the visual control
of actions.7
Lines of Evidence to Support the Distinction
The initial evidence on which the two-visual-system hypothesis
was developed came from patients with damage to their ventral or
dorsal pathway. On the one hand, a brain lesion to the ventral path-
way, most famously found in “patient DF,” resulted in visual form
agnosia, an inability to discriminate objects on the basis of their
shape, width, or orientation, yet the ability to accurately reach,
grasp, and manipulate those same objects with their hand re-
mained unaffected.1,8,9 Conversely, patients with a lesion to their
dorsal pathway experienced optic ataxia, where they could identify
the shape and form of objects but could not accurately interact with
those same objects.10 This behavioral double-dissociation between
perception and action provided an initial indication that the two
pathways may be differentiated by the constraints on the task being
performed rather than the specific properties of the objects being
viewed and/or interacted with (i.e., what vs. where).
The second line of support for the two-visual-system hypothesis
emerged from elegant yet at times controversial work that investi-
gates the differential impact of pictorial illusions on perception
and action. Because the ventral vision-for-perception pathway re-
lies on the allocentric (object-centered) semantic processing of
an image, whereas the dorsal vision-for-action pathway is said to
function egocentrically (body-centered) without that same interpre-
tation of the image,2,11 it was hypothesized that illusions would in-
fluence perceptual judgments but not actions. Aglioti et al.12
tested this hypothesis using the Ebbinghaus-Titchener illusion,
where a central disc surrounded by small circles is typically per-
ceived to be larger than the same disc surrounded by larger circles.
Healthy participants were asked to both perceptually judge the size
of the central circles and to grasp each accurately. The results con-
firmed that the illusion affected the perceptual judgments of size
but that the grasping actions (measured by the maximum grip
www.optvissci.com Optom Vis Sci 2021; Vol 98(7)
Copyright © American Academy of Optometry. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Two-visual-system Hypothesis and Sport Performance — Mann et al.
aperture between the fingers) remained the same irrespective of
the illusion. When performing the grasping actions, the dorsal path-
way was interpreted to produce a veridical and metrically accurate
representation of the object that was unaffected by the illusion.
The findings of this and other studies of illusions (e.g., see Ref.
13) added further weight to the idea that the visual information
used for goal-directed actions was distinct to that typically relied
on for perceptual judgments.
The third key line of evidence is from neuroimaging studies that
have identified the separate cortical regions associated with pro-
cessing for each of the two visual systems.14 Neuroimaging, in par-
ticular functional MRI, has provided increasing support for the
distinction by showing unique patterns of activation when partici-
pants perform tasks that rely on perception and action.15 What
has become clear though is that a complete separation of the two
streams may be an oversimplification and that, instead, there is
considerable interaction and cooperation between the two path-
ways. This is perhaps not surprising: Milner and Goodale4 argue
that the two streams must work together in controlling behavior.
For example, the dorsal system is capable of controlling the grasp
of an object, but not of processing its semantic meaning. When
grasping tools such as a hammer or screwdriver, interference to se-
mantic processing has been shown to have no effect on the ability
to grasp the implement, but it does interfere with the ability to cor-
rectly grasp the tool by its handle.16 The dorsal stream was
interpreted to be responsible for the grasping action, with the ven-
tral stream required to provide meaning to that object and ensure
that the grasping action was performed on the handle rather than
the opposite end of the tool.
The Two Streams Rely on Different Visual Information
Anatomical and physiological evidence suggests that the two vi-
sual streams do not receive the same sources of information from
the primary visual cortex.2 The ventral pathway produces the very
clear and colorful phenomenological representation of the world
that most people regard as “vision.”2,3 In contrast, visual informa-
tion to the more primitive dorsal system is likely blurred and may be
insensitive to color, although it does retain enhanced perception of
contrast and movement—each important sources of information
when taking into consideration the demands for movement control.
The primary explanation for this distinction is from the way that
parvo and magnocellular information from the retinae projects to
the ventral and dorsal streams. The magnocellular pathway, char-
acterized by fast processing that is sensitive to contrast, projects
to both the ventral and dorsal streams. However, the parvocellular
pathway, characterized by high spatial resolution (acuity) and color
sensitivity, projects almost exclusively to the ventral stream.2,17
HOW HAS THE TWO-VISUAL-SYSTEM HYPOTHESIS
BEEN INTERPRETED IN STUDIES OF VISION
IN SPORT?
A number of studies in the sport sciences have sought to test
the two-visual-system hypothesis and/or the results of studies have
been interpreted in light of the hypothesis. In general, the key ex-
pectation is that a motor action when performed during testing or
training will rely on visual information different from that when
performing a perceptual judgment, or that visual information
will be gathered in a different way. Moreover, larger gains are
generally expected from training designs that incorporate action
697
Two-visual-system Hypothesis and Sport Performance — Mann et al.
responses when compared with designs that do not. This section
will briefly review the evidence that is and is not consistent with
the two-visual-system hypothesis. Note that this is not intended as
a systematic review, and other evidence may exist.
Evidence in Support of the Two-visual-system
Hypothesis in Sport
In general, there are more studies in sports that are consistent
with the two-visual-system hypothesis than there are that are incon-
sistent. Indeed, numerous studies report functional distinctions
between action and perceptual tasks in skilled athletes. These dis-
tinctions have been found in a variety of perceptual-cognitive abil-
ities including gaze behavior, anticipation, decision making, color
perception, and resistance to visual blur.
A compelling and frequently cited example is a study by Dicks
and colleagues18 that examined the gaze behavior and anticipatory
ability of football goalkeepers. Dicks et al.18 compared the gaze
and movement behavior of eight goalkeepers in each of two video
simulation conditions (i.e., a verbal and joystick movement re-
sponse) and three in situ conditions (i.e., verbal responses, simpli-
fied body movements, and an actual attempt to save the kick). The
results showed that the goalkeepers fixated primarily on the
kicker's movements in most conditions, but instead focused much
more on the ball when required to move to stop real penalty kicks.
These results are consistent with the two-visual-system hypothesis
in that the way that visual information was gathered differed when a
genuine visually guided action was required.
In a study of anticipation in cricket batting, Mann et al.19 found
that action responses enhanced the anticipatory skill of batters.
Skilled and less skilled cricket batters were asked to anticipate
the direction of balls bowled toward them by producing either a
(1) verbal response, (2) foot movement, (3) shadowed movement,
or (4) actual hitting response. Results showed the skilled batters
to be better than the less-skilled batters when producing an actual
hitting response that replicated the one performed on-field, but
that the expert advantage diminished with less representative ac-
tions and even disappeared completely such that there was no dif-
ference between the groups when using a verbal response. The
results were interpreted in light of the two-visual-system hypothesis
as evidence that genuine action responses are required to test the
neural (i.e., dorsal) pathway relied on on-field and that which
skilled athletes are most likely to rely on.
Instead of testing anticipation, Müller and Abernethy20 sought
to examine whether larger training gains would be generated when
training with an action response rather than a perceptual response.
Indeed, anticipatory performance was later found to be greater in a
video simulation test for the group who trained with the action re-
sponse when compared with a control group. This result was consis-
tent with expectations based on the two-visual-system hypothesis.
However, in an in situ test, in contrast to expectations, there was
no difference in the improvement of the groups who trained with ac-
tion or perceptual responses. Both groups improved their anticipa-
tory responses after training (although only the action group
improved their ability to hit the ball). The results of the in situ test
are not consistent with the expectations based on the two-visual-
system hypothesis. The results of Müller and Abernethy20 suggest that
the dorsal stream is involved in anticipation training in sports, but
only to some extent and/or in only some instances.
Actions have also been found to result in enhanced decision
making in sport. Bruce and colleagues21 tested the decision
www.optvissci.com Optom Vis Sci 2021; Vol 98(7)
Copyright © American Academy of Optometry. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
making of different netball players and found that action responses
result in expert netball players making more efficient decisions
about to which teammate they should pass the ball to, a result
not found in developmental and less-skilled players. More specifi-
cally, only the players from the expert group took better decisions
when they had to actually pass the ball during in situ strategic sce-
narios as opposed to when verbalizing their decisions in equivalent
video scenarios. This advantage has been interpreted to emerge
from the production of a movement and therefore the engagement
of their more attuned dorsal stream of vision.
In an elegant test of the two-visual-system hypothesis, Sasada
and colleagues22 tested whether the dorsal stream is more likely
to be engaged in skilled baseball batters when hitting a ball rather
than when perceiving its position. Because color perception is
processed largely in the ventral but not dorsal stream, Sasada
et al.22 hypothesized that color perception should be impaired
when the dorsal stream is engaged (i.e., when an action is pro-
duced). Experienced and inexperienced baseball players were
asked to perform a coincidence-timing task either when swinging
a bat (coupled response) or when pressing a button (uncoupled re-
sponse) when a virtual ball reached them. The target changed color
during its trajectory, and participants were asked to identify the fi-
nal color. Sasada et al.22 found that the color perception of the
baseball players was worse in the coupled response than in the
uncoupled one, a difference not observed in the non-baseball
players. These results were interpreted to suggest that the ex-
perts relied more on the dorsal stream during actual interceptive
actions than novices did.
Finally, Mann and colleagues23,24 demonstrated in a series of
studies that the visual information relied on while hitting is more
consistent with that available in the dorsal rather than the ventral
stream. They tested the performance of cricket batters when hitting
while wearing contact lenses that simulated increasing levels of vi-
sual blur. Because the dorsal visual stream relies on relatively
blurred visual information, Mann et al.23,24 expected that consider-
able levels of visual blur would be required to decrease interceptive
performance when hitting if hitting was controlled by the dorsal
stream. Consistent with expectations, blur that reduced visual acu-
ity to 6/48 to 6/60 (20/160 to 20/200) was required before there
was any measurable decrease in batting performance (see also
Refs. 25–27). A subsequent study sought to test the hypothesis
that anticipatory judgments that relied on actions would be resis-
tant to blur, whereas perceptual responses would not.28 Cricket bat-
ters anticipated the direction of balls bowled by producing action
responses or verbal responses. Again, the action responses were supe-
rior to verbal responses, and the action responses were indeed unaf-
fected by mild to moderate amounts of blur. The findings were
interpreted to be further evidence that coupled responses are pro-
duced by the dorsal pathway, whereas uncoupled responses are not.
Evidence in Sport Potentially Contradicting the
Two-visual-system Hypothesis
Along with the in situ results found by Müller and Abernethy
which were not entirely consistent with the two-visual-system hy-
pothesis,20 Ranganathan and Carlton29 examined the anticipatory
performance of baseball batters and also found results inconsistent
with what would be predicted on the basis of the hypothesis.
Ranganathan and Carlton29 asked skilled and novice baseball bat-
ters to distinguish between fastballs and changeups (i.e., pitches
that initially appear similar to fastballs but are slower and drop).
698

Batters were placed in a virtual environment that showed video
footage of a point-light display of a pitcher and were asked to re-
spond either by swinging a bat or verbally. Ranganathan and
Carlton29 found that the batters (irrespective of their skill level)
were worse at identifying the pitch when swinging the bat when
compared with when they produced a verbal response. This is the
opposite of what would be expected, in particular for the skilled
batters, given that they would produce action responses during
training and in matches. The authors argued that the poorer perfor-
mance when producing the action stemmed from two factors: in-
creased task difficulty and reduced response time (because the
bat swing needed to be initiated earlier than the verbal response).
It is also possible that the point-light display used in that study cre-
ated an environment that became too artificial to replicate effec-
tively the task usually performed by baseball batters. From the
perspective of the two-visual-system hypothesis, the point-light dis-
play may have failed to fully engage the batters' dorsal visual
stream.
In a recent study, Hüttermann and colleagues30 asked team-sport
athletes and individual-sport athletes to perform a soccer passing task
while facing static teammates and/or opponents on a 210° curved
screen. The screen was divided vertically into halves, each half show-
ing various compositions of a teammate with or without opponents.
The teammate on one side of the screen was oriented toward the par-
ticipant, and the one on the other side was oriented toward the side-
line. Participants had to pass the ball only to teammates who were
unmarked and oriented toward them and were required to respond
either with a coupled kicking response or verbally. Hüttermann
et al.30 found that the decision making of the team-sport athletes
did not differ across the two response modes, but that the
individual-sport athletes performed better when responding ver-
bally. The authors explained that this result could be interpreted
on the basis of increased automated processing with increased
domain-specific expertise. They argued that the coupled response
for the group of individual-sport athletes (having less
domain-specific experience) was not yet automatized, resulting in
better performance in the uncoupled condition. On the other hand,
automation was attained in the team-sport group, enhancing their
performance when producing a coupled response. Alternately, it
could also be that the relatively artificial nature of the environment
(passing toward a video screen) could explain the lack of advantage
for the coupled responses and/or that not all team-sport athletes
were experts in the task given that not all were soccer players. Again,
similar to the conclusion drawn from the study of Ranganathan and
Carlton,29 it could be argued that the dorsal visual stream was not
actually engaged in this task.
What Are the Implications of the Two-visual-system
Hypothesis for Training to Improve Sport Performance?
There are two primary implications for vision training to improve
sport performance as a result of the two-visual-system hypothesis.
First, caution is required when making assumptions about the vi-
sual information an athlete relies on when performing an action.
The visual information underpinning perceptual judgments is the
very clear and colorful image of the world most of us are con-
sciously accustomed to.2,31 However, the two-visual-system hy-
pothesis suggests that the visual information relied on to control
actions might be different and, in particular, is blurrier and subcon-
scious. Accordingly, training to improve visual acuity might hold
limited benefits in improving, for instance, the ability to hit a
www.optvissci.com Optom Vis Sci 2021; Vol 98(7)
Copyright © American Academy of Optometry. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Two-visual-system Hypothesis and Sport Performance — Mann et al.
fast-moving ball. Wherever possible, it is best to test our assump-
tions empirically. For instance, it has been widely assumed that
baseball and cricket batters must rely on fast eye movements that
approach or even exceed the capabilities of the extraocular mus-
cles when hitting a ball.32–34 However, recent empirical research
shows that, in reality, the eyes often remain very still within the or-
bit and that it is largely the head that does the tracking of the
ball.35–37 Training eye movements may hold limited benefits if it
is the head that does the ball tracking. The implication is clear:
an (empirical) understanding of how the task is performed—and
the visual information relied on—is vital to design training interven-
tions to improve on-field performance.
The second key implication is that training interventions de-
signed to improve on-field sport performance should, wherever pos-
sible, require athletes to respond using the type of action responses
they would typically produce on-field.19,38,39 If perceptual judg-
ments are controlled by a different visual pathway to that which
controls actions, then training designs that require perceptual
judgments might train a neurological pathway that is distinct from
that relied on on-field and could even require the athlete to attune
to visual information that is different from that relied on on-field. By
extrapolating this idea, it could be argued that purely perceptual
training could even hinder on-field performance if the visual system
becomes attuned to inadequate information or information that is
not available when producing an actual action. Instead, training
designs that require genuine action responses are more likely to re-
sult in on-field gains by attuning athletes to the visual information
they will rely on in competition.
Most prominently, van der Kamp and colleagues38 argued that
most existing research on anticipation in sport was likely to have tested
the ventral visual pathway, because participants are most commonly
tested when making verbal responses to video-based displays, rather
than by producing the real-time motor responses (driven by the dorsal
pathway) that they would rely on in the performance environment.
Therefore, van der Kamp and colleagues38 claimed that the under-
standing of visual anticipation in interceptive actions was limited
and somewhat biased toward ventral conscious perception, a type of
perception not representative of actual sport performance. Accord-
ingly, van der Kamp et al.38 proposed that the visual anticipation of
what the situation affords for action primarily relies on the ventral
pathway, whereas the visual guidance of the action is supported by
the dorsal pathway. This model stimulated an array of empirical re-
search using tasks involving an action and has helped to generate a
movement toward action rather than perceptually based responses.
Norman11 has even argued that the dorsal and ventral pathways
may respectively parallel the two contrasting theoretical ap-
proaches to visual perception, the constructivist and ecological ap-
proaches. The main idea was that both theoretical approaches
could coexist and present valid descriptions of perception; they
simply refer to different aspects of information being accessed by
the sensory system. The constructivist view, the more traditional
of the approaches, argues that visual information is processed
and takes into account additional information that is beyond the
sensory stimulation (e.g., from memory). The ecological view, on
the other hand, argues that information is acted on directly without
any need for higher-order “processing.” Instead, invariants in the
visual array are said to directly supply unequivocal information
about how to act. Norman11 argued that the ventral pathway, by
processing information in a conscious manner, acts in a way con-
sistent with the tenants of the constructivist view. In contrast, the
dorsal pathway, which acts less consciously by directly acting on
699
Two-visual-system Hypothesis and Sport Performance — Mann et al.

available information, acts in a manner more similar to that argued

for by the ecological approach. Research in visual perception and,
in particular, in the perceptual-cognitive sport sciences has contin-
ued to approach perception from often either the constructivist or
the ecological approach, each often finding evidence to support
their own viewpoints. According to Norman's (not uncontroversial)
viewpoint, constructivists in the sport sciences are more likely to
be testing ventral-pathway functions, whereas ecologists are more
likely testing dorsal functions.
What Has Been the Impact of the Two-visual-system
Hypothesis in the Sport Sciences?
CRITICISMS OF THE TWO-VISUAL-SYSTEM
HYPOTHESIS
One of the most likely explanations for the two-visual-system
hypothesis's modest impact is in the increasing number of re-
searchers who argue against the validity of the hypothesis.42–44 A
growing number of studies have revealed findings that are inconsis-
tent with the predictions of the hypothesis, with the outcomes lead-
ing to rigorous ongoing debate. In fact, protagonists have questioned
almost all of the evidence on which the hypothesis was built and
claim that the hypothesis is no longer tenable. Here we briefly review
the key criticisms.

The two-visual-system hypothesis has had a relatively sustained

impact on the literature in sport sciences over the past 30 years,
with a relatively consistent rate of citations since first publication
(Fig. 1). Perhaps surprisingly though, the impact of the two-
visual-system hypothesis has failed to grow in comparison with
other comparable theories (compared in particular with work by
Pinder et al.41 on representative design, a concept that we will re-
visit shortly). Given the impact of the two-visual-system hypothesis
in the wider literature, it seems reasonable to question why the
theory's impact has remained modest in the sport sciences.
Neuropsychological Evidence
The development of the two-visual-system hypothesis relied
heavily on studies that demonstrated patient DF's impaired object-
recognition but preserved action-control. However, more recent
studies show that patient DF's story is not so simple. Some recent
studies show her visually guided actions to be highly inaccurate both
when controlled by peripheral vision45,46 and when haptic feedback
is removed,47 with the claim being that she shows damage to both
object recognition and action control. Moreover, functional MRI

FIGURE 1. Frequency of citations in the sport literature to the article of Goodale and Milner3 since publication. Citations are reported as the number of
citations per 100,000 citations identified in Google Scholar using the search term “sport*” (the “*” searches for any term starting with and including
“sport”). The number of citations to articles by Brunswick40 and Pinder et al.41 is shown for purposes of comparison.

www.optvissci.com Optom Vis Sci 2021; Vol 98(7) 700

Copyright © American Academy of Optometry. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.


shows patient DF to have damage to her ventral and dorsal streams
(e.g., bilateral thinning in the intraparietal sulcus in the dorsal
stream in addition to her extensive bilateral ventral stream dam-
age48,49). As a result, it remains unclear whether patient DF's im-
paired peripheral action control is a result of the damage to her
dorsal stream or rather is evidence that perception and action do
not have distinct visual representations.
Studies of Visual Illusions
Studies that demonstrate an influence of pictorial illusions on
perceptual judgments—but not actions—provide alluring evidence
for the two-visual-system hypothesis; however, some now argue
that flaws in those studies have provided a misleading picture.
Early studies did not account for differences in the sensitivity of
perceptual judgments and actions to changes in object sizes, and
indeed, the influence of illusions on actions remains when a correc-
tion is made,50,51 albeit that the influence on actions usually re-
mains smaller than that for perceptual judgments.52 Moreover,
some illusions such as motion illusions influence perception
and action equally,53 whereas other illusions influence some
movements more than others (e.g., eye movements54). Debate
continues whether these findings undermine the two-visual-system
hypothesis or, instead, whether only some illusions may act at a neu-
rological level that influences the ventral but not dorsal stream.55,56
Functional Imaging and Computational Modeling
The development of functional brain imaging and computa-
tional modeling has led to a shift in understanding away from a
modularly organized brain toward a networked brain that is highly
flexible and context dependent.42 Rather than supporting a dis-
tinction between two distinct visual streams, evidence increasingly
shows that flexible communication emerges between the two streams
in a very task-specific manner.57 Moreover, numerous studies argue
that more than two visual streams exist.58,59 These imaging studies
have further questioned the existence of two functionally and modu-
larly distinct streams.
The emerging doubt about the distinction between the two vi-
sual streams has made the theory increasingly difficult to falsify.
A sound scientific theory should be falsifiable, meaning that it
must be possible to show that the theory is not true through exper-
imentation.60 That is, it should be possible to design experiments
whose results either support the hypothesis or provide evidence
against it. However, in the case of the two-visual-system hypothe-
sis, results that fail to show a functional distinction between per-
ception and action are often attributed to there being cross-talk
between the two pathways. Take for example the study by Müller
and Abernethy,20 which failed to find any difference in the in situ
anticipatory performance of cricket batters after training with either
an action or a perceptual response. If Müller and Abernethy20 had
found action training to produce better results, then it would have
provided support for the two-visual-system hypothesis. However,
the failure to find a difference can—instead of providing evidence
against the two-visual-system hypothesis—be explained by there
being cross-talk between the dorsal and ventral streams whereby
ventral training may ultimately improve performance on the dorsal
task. Scientists tend to avoid scientific theories that cannot be fal-
sified, and this may in part explain the increasing reluctance to rely
on the two-visual-system hypothesis.
www.optvissci.com Optom Vis Sci 2021; Vol 98(7)
Copyright © American Academy of Optometry. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Two-visual-system Hypothesis and Sport Performance — Mann et al.
What Is Filling the Void?
Although explicit references to the two-visual-system hypothesis
seem to be stagnant within the sport sciences, the ideas that the the-
ory generated and supported have not. In fact, if anything, those ideas
have only grown. Foremost is the idea that, to maximize effectiveness,
testing and training for sport performance should take place in condi-
tions that replicate the “on-field” performance conditions as closely as
possible. This principle maximizes the likelihood that the neural acti-
vation that occurs on-field is also the one relied on during testing and
training. However, if researchers are not relying on the two-visual-
system hypothesis to support this principle, what are they relying on?
The concept of representativeness is increasingly used to justify
the use of testing and training designs that more closely replicate
the conditions experienced on-field. According to Brunswick,40 a
test or training task is said to be representative if its constraints on
behavior—including the information available when performing that
task—are characteristic of those when performed naturally.41 Impor-
tantly, although the two-visual-system hypothesis relates explicitly to
the need for the action performed during testing and training to closely
resemble the one performed on field (to rely on the same visual infor-
mation), representativeness as a concept applies much more widely.
Representative design advocates that it is not only the action used dur-
ing testing or training that should be representative of that performed
in the natural environment, but so too should any source of informa-
tion that acts as a constraint on behavior (e.g., sounds, teammates,
emotions, and pressure). The theory suggests that the more of that in-
formation that is removed, the less likely it is that test results will re-
flect those that would be found on-field, and the less likely that
training will result in enhanced on-field performance.
Although representative design is fundamentally appealing and
growing in popularity, strong empirical support is yet to emerge.
There exists only a small number of studies that show that the
way a task is executed differs when that task is less representative
of that used on-field,18,61–63 with very little done yet to show that
more representative training designs result in superior improve-
ments in on-field performance. Moreover, unlike the two-visual-
system hypothesis, representativeness is not formulated on the basis
of neuroscientific findings but rather is largely theoretical. Empirical
support is vital given the growing popularity of the concept.
The growing popularity of representative design has led to the devel-
opment of newer theories. For instance, Hadlow et al.64 recently pro-
posed the Modified Perceptual Training framework. Designed to
address the growing popularity of visual and perceptual training tools in
sport, the framework suggests that the success of any perceptual training
tool should depend on the degree to which it is representative of not only
the on-field (action) response, but also the perceptual function being
trained and the perceptual stimulus used in the training task. In that
sense, a training design that requires an action response (like that per-
formed on-field) should improve on-field performance more than a de-
sign whose response is less representative. Similarly, a design that
trains a perceptual function relied on on-field should be more successful
than one that trains a less representative function, and a design should
be more successful if the perceptual (in particular visual) information it
presents is more similar to that present on-field than a design that does
not. The framework advises that vision and/or perceptual training
should, wherever possible, seek to train a perceptual skill known to
be relied on on-field and should do so using (visual) information and
responses the athlete would typically rely on. However, although the
framework is intuitively appealing and theoretically sound, it again re-
mains largely untested and requires empirical validation.
701
Two-visual-system Hypothesis and Sport Performance — Mann et al.

creasingly unclear whether the central claims of the two-visual-

CONCLUSIONS
The two-visual-system hypothesis has helped to change the way
that sport scientists and practitioners view the way that sport skills
should be both tested and trained. The hypothesis helped to high-
light that the neurological pathway (or network) used during many
existing tests or training paradigms may rely on different visual
information and may be different from that used on-field during
competition. This new approach has led to positive change: the im-
plementation of more naturalistic designs that most agree are more
likely to result in the better sampling of on-field performance and
better gains as a result of training. It has, however, become in-
system hypothesis remain true. There is increasing doubt about
the degree to which the two visual streams are indeed modular
and distinct, and even doubt about whether there are only two vi-
sual streams. Sport scientists are increasingly relying on other the-
ories to justify the use of more naturalistic tests and training tasks,
although these theories remain largely theoretical and so far lack
the neurological underpinning and evidence base of the two-
visual-system hypothesis. Most agree that tests and training tasks
should be as representative of those performed on field as possible,
but much needs to be done to better understand exactly why that is
and whether the principle applies to all tasks important for sport
performance.

ARTICLE INFORMATION
Submitted: January 9, 2021
Accepted: March 28, 2021
Funding/Support: None of the authors have reported
funding/support.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None of the authors have
reported a financial conflict of interest.
Author Contributions: Writing – Original Draft: DLM, DF-G,
HN; Writing – Review & Editing: DLM, DF-G, HN.
REFERENCES
1. Goodale MA, Milner AD, Jakobson LS, et al. A Neuro-
logical Dissociation between Perceiving Objects and
Grasping Them. Nature 1991;349:154–6.
2. Milner AD, Goodale MA. The Visual Brain in Action.
Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1995.
3. Goodale MA, Milner AD. Separate Visual Pathways
for Perception and Action. Trends Neurosci 1992;
15:20–5.
4. Milner AD, Goodale MA. Two Visual Systems Re-
viewed. Neuropsychologia 2008;46:774–85.
5. Ungerleider LG, Mishkin M. Two Cortical Visual Sys-
tems. In: Ingle DJ, Goodale MA, Mansfield RJ, eds.
Analysis of Visual Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press;
1982:549–86.
6. Mishkin M, Ungerleider LG, Macko KA. Object Vision
and Spatial Vision: Two Cortical Pathways. Trends
Neurosci 1983;6:414–7.
7. Goodale MA. Transforming Vision into Action. Vision
Res 2011;51:1567–87.
8. Milner AD, Perrett DI, Johnston RS, et al. Perception
and Action in ‘Visual Form Agnosia’. Brain 1991;114:
405–28.
9. Perenin MT, Vighetto A. Optic Ataxia: A Specific Dis-
ruption in Visuomotor Mechanisms. I. Different Aspects
of the Deficit in Reaching for Objects. Brain 1988;111
(Pt 3):643–74.
10. Goodale MA, Meenan JP, Bülthoff HH, et al. Sepa-
rate Neural Pathways for the Visual Analysis of Object
Shape in Perception and Prehension. Curr Biol 1994;
4:604–10.
11. Norman J. Two Visual Systems and Two Theories of
Perception: An Attempt to Reconcile the Constructivist
and Ecological Approaches. Behav Brain Sci 2002;25:
73–96; discussion 96-144.
12. Aglioti S, DeSouza JF, Goodale MA. Size-contrast Il-
lusions Deceive the Eye but Not the Hand. Curr Biol
1995;5:679–85.
13. Goodale MA, Gonzalez CL, Króliczak G. Action
Rules: Why the Visual Control of Reaching and Grasping
Is Not Always Influenced by Perceptual Illusions. Per-
ception 2008;37:355–66.
14. Culham JC, Danckert SL, DeSouza JF, et al. Visually
Guided Grasping Produces fMRI Activation in Dorsal but
Not Ventral Stream Brain Areas. Exp Brain Res 2003;
153:180–9.
15. Grill-Spector K, Weiner KS. The Functional Archi-
tecture of the Ventral Temporal Cortex and Its Role in
Categorization. Nat Rev Neurosci 2014;15:536–48.
16. Creem SH, Proffitt DR. Grasping Objects by Their
Handles: A Necessary Interaction between Cogni-
tion and Action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Per-
form 2001;27:218–28.
17. Van Essen DC, DeYoe EA. Concurrent Processing
in the Primate Visual Cortex. In: Gazzaniga MS, ed.
The Cognitive Neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press; 1995:383–400.
18. Dicks M, Button C, Davids K. Examination of Gaze
Behaviors Under in Situ and Video Simulation Task Con-
straints Reveals Differences in Information Pickup for
Perception and Action. Atten Percept Psychophys
2010;72:706–20.
19. Mann DL, Abernethy B, Farrow D. Action Specificity
Increases Anticipatory Performance and the Expert Ad-
vantage in Natural Interceptive Tasks. Acta Psychol
(Amst) 2010;135:17–23.
20. Müller S, Abernethy B. An Expertise Approach to
Training Anticipation Using Temporal Occlusion in a
Natural Skill Setting. Tech Instr Cog Learn 2014;9:
295–312.
21. Bruce L, Farrow D, Raynor A, et al. But I Can't Pass
That Far! The Influence of Motor Skill on Decision Mak-
ing. Psychol Sport Exerc 2012;13:152–61.
22. Sasada M, Nakamoto H, Ikudome S, et al. Color Per-
ception Is Impaired in Baseball Batters while Performing
an Interceptive Action. Atten Percept Psychophys 2015;
77:2074–81.
23. Mann DL, Ho NY, De Souza NJ, et al. Is Optimal Vi-
sion Required for the Successful Execution of an
Interceptive Task? Hum Mov Sci 2007;26:343–56.
24. Mann DL, Abernethy B, Farrow D. The Resilience of
Natural Interceptive Actions to Refractive Blur. Hum Mov
Sci 2010;29:386–400.
25. Applegate RA, Applegate RA. Set Shot Shooting
Performance and Visual Acuity in Basketball. Optom
Vis Sci 1992;69:765–8.
26. Bulson RC, Ciuffreda KJ, Hayes J, et al. Effect of
Retinal Defocus on Basketball Free Throw Shooting Per-
formance. Clin Exp Optom 2015;98:330–4.
27. Bulson RC, Ciuffreda KJ, Hung GK. The Effect of
Retinal Defocus on Golf Putting. Ophthalmic Physiol
Opt 2008;28:334–44.
28. Mann DL, Abernethy B, Farrow D. Visual Informa-
tion Underpinning Skilled Anticipation: The Effect
of Blur on a Coupled and Uncoupled in Situ Anticipatory
Response. Atten Percept Psychophys 2010;72:1317–26.
29. Ranganathan R, Carlton LG. Perception-action Cou-
pling and Anticipatory Performance in Baseball Batting.
J Mot Behav 2007;39:369–80.
30. Hüttermann S, Ford PR, Williams AM, et al. Attention,
Perception, and Action in a Simulated Decision-making
Task. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2019;41:230–41.
31. Livingstone M, Hubel D. Segregation of Form, Color,
Movement, and Depth: Anatomy, Physiology, and Per-
ception. Science 1988;240:740–9.
32. Land MF, McLeod P. From Eye Movements to Ac-
tions: How Batsmen Hit the Ball. Nat Neurosci 2000;
3:1340–5.
33. Ripoll H, Fleurance P. What Does Keeping One's
Eye on the Ball Mean? Ergonomics 1988;31:1647–54.
34. Bahill AT, LaRitz T. Why Can't Batters Keep Their
Eyes on the Ball? Am Sci 1984;72:249–53.
35. Mann DL, Spratford W, Abernethy B. The Head
Tracks and Gaze Predicts: How the World's Best Batters
Hit a Ball. PLoS One 2013;8:e58289.
36. Kishita Y, Ueda H, Kashino M. Eye and Head Move-
ments of Elite Baseball Players in Real Batting. Front
Sports Act Living 2020;2:3.
37. Fogt N, Persson TW. A Pilot Study of Horizontal
Head and Eye Rotations in Baseball Batting. Optom
Vis Sci 2017;94:789–96.
38. van der Kamp J, Rivas F, van Doorn H, et al. Ventral
and Dorsal Contributions in Visual Anticipation in Fast
Ball Sports. Int J Sport Psychol 2008;39:100–30.
39. Mann DL, Savelsbergh GJP. Issues in the Measure-
ment of Anticipation. In: Baker J, Farrow D, eds.
Routledge Handbook of Sport Expertise. Oxon, United
Kingdom: Routledge; 2015.
40. Brunswick E. Perception and the Representative De-
sign of Psychological Experiments. 2nd ed. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press; 1956.

www.optvissci.com Optom Vis Sci 2021; Vol 98(7) 702

Copyright © American Academy of Optometry. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.


41. Pinder RA, Davids K, Renshaw I, et al. Representa-
tive Learning Design and Functionality of Research and
Practice in Sport. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2011;33:
146–55.
42. de Haan EH, Jackson SR, Schenk T. Where Are We
Now with ‘What’ and ‘How’? Cortex 2018;98:1–7.
43. Smeets JBJ, Brenner E. 10 Years of Illusions. J Exp
Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2006;32:1501–4.
44. Schenk T, McIntosh RD. Do We Have Independent Vi-
sual Streams for Perception and Action? Cogn Neurosci
2010;1:52–62.
45. Rossit S, Harvey M, Butler SH, et al. Impaired Pe-
ripheral Reaching and On-line Corrections in Patient
DF: Optic Ataxia with Visual Form Agnosia. Cortex 2018;
98:84–101.
46. Hesse C, Ball K, Schenk T. Pointing in Visual Pe-
riphery: Is DF's Dorsal Stream Intact? PLoS One 2014;
9:e91420.
47. Schenk T. No Dissociation between Perception and
Action in Patient DF when Haptic Feedback Is With-
drawn. J Neurosci 2012;32:2013–7.
48. Bridge H, Thomas OM, Minini L, et al. Structural and
Functional Changes across the Visual Cortex of a Patient with
Visual Form Agnosia. J Neurosci 2013;33:12779–91.
www.optvissci.com
Copyright © American Academy of Optometry. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Two-visual-system Hypothesis and Sport Performance — Mann et al.
49. James TW, Culham J, Humphrey GK, et al. Ventral
Occipital Lesions Impair Object Recognition but Not
Object-directed Grasping: An fMRI Study. Brain 2003;
126:2463–75.
50. Franz VH. Action Does Not Resist Visual Illusions.
Trends Cogn Sci 2001;5:457–9.
51. Franz VH, Fahle M, Bülthoff HH, et al. Effects of Vi-
sual Illusions on Grasping. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept
Perform 2001;27:1124–44.
52. Bruno N, Franz VH. When Is Grasping Affected by
the Müller-Lyer Illusion?: A Quantitative Review.
Neuropsychologia 2009;47:1421–33.
53. de la Malla C, Smeets JBJ, Brenner E. Errors in In-
terception Can Be Predicted from Errors in Perception.
Cortex 2018;98:49–59.
54. de Brouwer AJ, Smeets JB, Gutteling TP, et al. The
Müller-Lyer Illusion Affects Visuomotor Updating in the Dor-
sal Visual Stream. Neuropsychologia 2015;77:119–27.
55. Goodale MA, Milner AD. Two Visual Pathways—
Where Have They Taken Us and Where Will They Lead
in Future? Cortex 2018;98:283–92.
56. Milner D, Dyde R. Why Do Some Perceptual Illu-
sions Affect Visually Guided Action, when Others Don't?
Trends Cogn Sci 2003;7:10–1.
Optom Vis Sci 2021; Vol 98(7)
57. Hutchison RM, Gallivan JP. Functional Coupling be-
tween Frontoparietal and Occipitotemporal Pathways
during Action and Perception. Cortex 2018;98:8–27.
58. Galletti C, Fattori P. The Dorsal Visual Stream
Revisited: Stable Circuits or Dynamic Pathways? Cortex
2018;98:203–17.
59. Haak KV, Beckmann CF. Objective Analysis of the
Topological Organization of the Human Cortical Visual
Connectome Suggests Three Visual Pathways. Cortex
2018;98:73–83.
60. Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
London, United Kingdom: Hutchinson & Co.; 1959.
61. Pinder RA, Davids K, Renshaw I, et al. Manipulat-
ing Informational Constraints Shapes Movement Re-
organization in Interceptive Actions. Atten Percept
Psychophys 2011;73:1242–54.
62. Renshaw I, Oldham ARH, Davids K, et al. Changing
Ecological Constraints of Practice Alters Coordination of Dy-
namic Interceptive Actions. Eur J Sport Sci 2007;7:157–67.
63. van Maarseveen MJJ, Oudejans RRD, Mann DL,
et al. Perceptual-cognitive Skill and the in Situ Performance
of Soccer Players. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 2018;71:455–70.
64. Hadlow SM, Panchuk D, Mann DL, et al. Modified
Perceptual Training in Sport: A New Classification
Framework. J Sci Med Sport 2018;21:950–8.
703