Search

Purpose: Golf coaches may recommend "blind" putting drills in which golfers close their eyes to improve their feel. Research on specificity of learning suggests, however, that adding or removing a source of sensory information after practicing under differing circumstances can cause performance decrements. Specificity of learning is also dependent upon specific task requirements. The purpose of this study was to examine whether golf putting, requiring body positioning and aiming an implement, would benefit from blind training. Method: Novice golfers (n = 24) in Vision Training (VT) & No-Vision Training (NVT) groups completed 108 trials of a 10-ft putt. After a 24-hr delay, both groups completed sighted- and blind-putting tests. Results: Acquisition results revealed Group × Block interactions in RE (p = .025) and y-VE (p = .032). Post hoc procedures revealed significant differences between the groups on Block 2 (p = .017), with the NVT group producing longer mean RE. During testing, RE and x-VE results revealed Group × Test interactions (p = .027 & .041), such that performance of the VT group suffered when transferred to blind putting, while performance of the NVT group did not differ when transferred. Conclusion: NVT did not confer any advantage for subsequent performance with vision. Moreover, results were not consistent with the specificity of learning hypothesis and suggest that putting does not rely on complete sensory integration to support subsequent performance. Presumably, task requirements related to body positioning provided adequate sensory cues for successful performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the role of visual and verbal feedback on golf putting accuracy. The putting accuracy of 12, visually-normal, inexperienced golfers (range 23-66 years, mean=42 years) was assessed for small (3cm) and large (12cm) targets located 6 feet away. After a brief practice interval, subjects performed the task: under either normal viewing conditions ("control"); behind a large cardboard baffle that eliminated most of their central and peripheral visual field ("no visual or verbal feedback"); or behind the same baffle but with verbal knowledge of putt accuracy ("verbal feedback only"). There was no significant difference between any condition for both the 3cm and 12cm target. The difference in putting percentage accuracy between the three conditions ranged from 2.1%-4.6% for the 3cm target and from 0.4%-2.9% for the 12cm target. Comparison of the first 10 shots to the last 10 shots for each condition revealed no significant differences in putting performance. These findings are consistent with earlier studies demonstrating a reduced reliance on visual feedback for certain simple, repetitive, and fixed sensorimotor activities. In such tasks, visual information appears to be of less importance, once the proper force- The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the role of visual and verbal feedback on golf putting accuracy. The putting accuracy of 12, visually-normal, inexperienced golfers (range 23-66 years, mean=42 years) was assessed for small (3cm) and large (12cm) targets located 6 feet away. After a brief practice interval, subjects performed the task: under either normal viewing conditions ("control"); behind a large cardboard baffle that eliminated most of their central and peripheral visual field ("no visual or verbal feedback"); or behind the same baffle but with verbal knowledge of putt accuracy ("verbal feedback only"). There was no significant difference between any condition for both the 3cm and 12cm target. The difference in putting percentage accuracy between the three conditions ranged from 2.1%-4.6% for the 3cm target and from 0.4%-2.9% for the 12cm target. Comparison of the first 10 shots to the last 10 shots for each condition revealed no significant differences in putting performance. These findings are consistent with earlier studies demonstrating a reduced reliance on visual feedback for certain simple, repetitive, and fixed sensorimotor activities. In such tasks, visual information appears to be of less importance, once the proper force-distance paradigm has been incorporated into motor memory. Further, motor memory does not appear to dissipate with the withdrawal of visual feedback, at least in the short term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]