Many authors have alluded to the idea that Milner and Goodale’s (1995) distinction between a ventral system for perception and a dorsal system for action is directly relevant for the study of visual anticipation in fast ball sports. Yet, an encompassing evaluation is lacking. The purpose of this paper is to provide an appraisal of the significance of Milner and Goodale’s two-visual system model for the study of visual anticipation. We introduce a new framework for visual anticipation that emphasizes the interacting contributions of the ventral system in perceiving what action the situation affords and the dorsal system in the visual guidance of that action. In the ensuing review, we argue that the adoption of this new framework implies that much of previous laboratory and field research on visual anticipation, and in particular the work that employed the occlusion technique, only examined the role of the ventral system. Because researchers have overlooked movement control, and hence the dorsal system’s contribution, our knowledge of visual anticipation is limited and somewhat biased. The implications for the design of future experiments are discussed.

We would like to congratulate Van der Kamp and colleagues on an excellent target article, in which they have made a convincing case for using two-visual-systems theory to explain anticipatory behaviour in fast ball sports. Although such an application of the theory is not something we have ever undertaken ourselves, we are frequently asked about it in discussion, and would fully endorse the present analysis. As Van der Kamp, Rivas, van Doorn & Savelsberch (2008). argue here, there is a crucial division of labour: the ventral visual stream plays the major role in determining choices between different courses of action, while the dorsal stream carries out the visuomotor transformations required to perform the action once that selection has been made (see Milner & Goodale, 2006).

As Van der Kamp and co-authors (2008) correctly point out in their lead article, while there has been substantial reference in recent studies of anticipation in sport to the important distinction drawn by Milner and Goodale (e.g., Goodale & Milner, 1992; Milner & Goodale, 1995) between vision-forperception (provided by a ventral cortical pathway) and vision-for-action (provided by a dorsal cortical pathway), there has been very little work done as yet either to thoroughly conceptualise how a dual pathways model of vision might help understand the extant studies on visual anticipation in sport or to verify experimentally the respective dorsal and ventral contributions to anticipation. The article by van der Kamp, Rivas, van Doorn, and Savelsbergh (2008) presents an initial and important contribution to the former and provides an excellent foundation for the latter. We find ourselves in general agreement with the authors on the major points of their paper and quibbling only with some issues primarily related to the (retrospective) interpretation of existing studies of expert anticipation from a dual pathways’ perspective.

The target article by Van der Kamp, Rivas, van Doorn and Savelsbergh provides an interesting analysis of the visual-motor processes associated with interception. Although I agree with the authors that there are probably various levels of perceptual-motor control that contribute differentially to higher order strategic behaviour and rapid current control, there are some specific issues of the analysis related to visual frames of reference and the dorsal-ventral system dichotomy that I have difficulty reconciling with the existing literature. As well, it is not always the case that neural representations of action and/or the expected sensory consequences of actions constrain the time available for current control. In fact, skilled performance may depend, at least partly, on the richness of feedforward information about the limb and body movements required to intercept moving objects. Although somewhat related, I will tackle these two issues in turn.

Van der Kamp, Rivas, van Doorn, and Savelsbergh (2008) have recently introduced an ecologically-inspired framework for visual anticipation in ball sports. Their framework emphasizes the interacting contributions of the dorsal and ventral systems (e.g., Milner & Goodale, 1995). The framework is based on the idea that the ventral system is involved in perceiving which actions a particular situation affords and the dorsal system in the visual guidance of the action. In this commentary we further discuss the function of visual anticipation in ball sports. More specifically, we redefine the concept of visual anticipation and examine the theoretical consequences of the redefinition.

Much research attention has been dedicated to investigating visual anticipation in sport performance. In particular, the psychological phenomenon of “passive” perception has received a major share of interest (i.e., observation/perception without physical interaction, or merely with motor or verbal reaction). However, in the context of sports, we believe it is of paramount importance to address the topic of active perception as advanced by Van der Kamp and colleagues in the target article. By emphasising the role of movement control in perception, these authors seek to re-direct the focus of research on visual anticipation from passive to active perception. They argue in favour of a theoretically driven research programme that considers both processes of judgment for action and of movement control in the study of anticipation in sport. In evaluating the significance of the two-visual system model by Milner and Goodale (MG model) to the study of visual anticipation, Van der Kamp, Rivas, van Doorn, and Savelsbergh (2008) argue that they introduce a framework for visual anticipation that emphasizes the contributions of the ventral and dorsal systems. This is an important addition to the field because it allows for a more comprehensive understanding of visual anticipation in sport. However, the theoretical perspective of Van der Kamp et al. may be seen as endorsing psychological attributes to anatomical substrates, and not to the individual. An organism- centred view would miss a central point in ecological psychology: the reciprocity between organism and environment. In the present commentary, we will consider a broader ecological framework, encompassing both Gibsonian (Gibson, 1979) and Brunswikian (Brunswik, 1952, 1956, see also Hammond & Stewart, 2001) theorizing, accommodating the perceptive phenomena (visual guidance of action, and judgment for action) involved in anticipation as it was addressed by Van der Kamp et al. Finally we will discuss the methodological implications of this broader ecological approach in context of the concerns put forth by Van der Kamp et al.

In their target article, Van der Kamp and colleagues provided a thought-provoking critique of the extant literature on visual anticipation in fast ball sports, arguing how researchers in this area have failed to adequately capture the potential of Milner and Goodale’s (1995) two visual systems model for explaining perception of information for decision making, planning and acting. There has only been limited recognition in the literature that the model has some potential to explain perceptual processes involved in picking up information prior to ball flight for use in supporting (interceptive) actions. Van der Kamp, Rivas, van Doorn and Savelsbergh (2008) argued that a major reason for this inadequacy is because an ‘encompassing explanation’ for the involvement of two visual systems in visual anticipation and action has not been forthcoming. In this commentary, it is observed how such an endeavour in sport psychology would form a challenging task requiring a multi-disciplinary approach from researchers. Discussion then focuses on current understanding from a range of related scientific disciplines that might inform such an approach, including biology, the neurosciences and psychology. Van der Kamp and colleagues highlighted the potential role of ecological psychology in providing some of the conceptualisation necessary for re-designing experimental tasks in research on visual anticipation in sport. Their call for experimental re-design is echoed in this commentary with reference to past and contemporary ideas in psychology (especially insights of Gibson (1979) and Brunswik (1956)), coordination dynamics and the behavioural neurosciences.