What’s worthy of note here is when fixating back to where the tangent point is, race drivers fixation points were not entirely accurate, they were in the ‘vicinity’ of the tangent point. The researchers suggest that it may be a case of fixating where the drivers wants to go.
Ok fair enough. But, that’s not what I am experiencing. I am more likely to place my kart exactly where I want it if I am not focused on that exact spot. My mind has been informed where I want it to go. My mind gets me there very accurately without direct, continual observation. Just not seeing the inaccuracy.
Eye-strategy methods are often taught whereby race drivers are encouraged to eliminate Returnative Tangent Point Fixation (RTPF) in preference for a continuative ‘further ahead’ fixation strategy. A continuative fixation eye strategy may suggest a driver look at the apex before they hit it, then look towards the exit as they approach and pass the apex. A key feature would be to emphasise not returning gaze to the tangent region of the turn once the exit point is fixated upon. It may well be the case that in a situation where the driver is more familiar with the environment RTPF goes away naturally, and a more traditional look-ahead strategy will be employed.
This sounds more like me. I am scanning, noting things that are relevant as I get closer and then store it away. I’ll revisit them as I pass to confirm trajectory, maybe, but briefly and likely peripherally.
According to Peter M. van Leeuwen et al, RTPF would appear to be the accepted strategy for highly-skilled racing drivers in the conditions of limited track time and an unfamiliar environment in pursuit of maximum performance. RTPF was especially prevalent during long corners. Therefore RTPF should not be discounted as a valid strategy during the learning phase of a particular track
Ok but why stop there? It should be automatic, built in.
I’ll keep reading and see where I disagree. I think we are saying similar things but there’s a big difference in perceived value.
The difference is not in value, it’s just that humans are rubbish at knowing where they look without eye tracking. If you tell me where you think you look, I’ll find it interesting, but it doesn’t mean I believe it. You’re perception of reality, the way your brain interprets and then manifests into consciousness, may result in your describing an experience that never really happened. Of course you may well be right, but any one who studies eye strategies for a manner of tasks (whether it be analysing art or making a cup of tea) knows your in the dark without hard data. one famous example is of an art critic who said he looked at paintings in a particularly unique way. They stuck the tracker on him… and well… he was like everyone else. He wasn’t unique at all. Even with eye-tracking we can’t be 100% sure because of the observer effect.
We are woefully behind on the actual knowledge about all this in my view. Eye-strategies and how they manifests into the way we interpret reality is hugely complex.
So when discussing where you think you look there needs to be a huge caveat that states what your describing is just an interpretation the data being fed through your brain and into your visual cortex. You don’t remember that for a good 10-20% of the time your are effectively blind (during saccadic movement) and that demonstrates what kinda weird magic your consciousnesses is performing.
Is there not a huge distinction between where the eyes are pointing, and how the visual field is being parsed, filtered, processed, and interpreted?
For example, in the example given, if they attached both eye trackers and an FMRI to the critic, perhaps it would show that the critic does move his eyes like everyone else. However, the FMRI might show that he ‘experiences’ the information he (and presumably everyone else) is looking at in a very different/unique way (i.e. “many look, but few see”). If you accept there is (or at least can be) a distinction between looking and seeing, then from a ‘looking’ perspective the critic was wrong about his uniqueness, but if the critic just chose the word ‘looked’ to describe how he ‘sees’ art, then perhaps he was not so wrong?
Anyway, to me, how a driver ‘sees’ (how he processes the information in the visual field and integrates it with his other sensations – vestibular, kinesthetic, tactile, etc) is perhaps more important to performance improvement than where his eyes are pointing.
This is actually an important observation re: sim as a training tool.
“I was concentrating more on getting the power down at the correct point…”
In a nutshell, this is one of the major benefits of being able to run laps in sim. Over the past couple days, where I have been hotlapping to try to get truly fast at Oran Park, I experienced the same thing.
As I get deeper into my knowledge of how to run the track, my ability to get to throttle gets earlier, prettier, careful but more powerful.
This is a function of repetition and searching for the power lines. It’s always the same, always. There is a tipping point, experientially, where you have done “it” enough that you can let “it” manage itself and focus on the bigger picture.
You could do the same on track in a real car or kart, arrive at that tipping point. But, you can’t push as hard as we do in sim. Seeing what happens if you let the car rotate a bit on that kerb resulting in a horrendous crash, is an example that in sim, isn’t a big deal. So, you let that happen to see what you learn.
Sim lets you run laps freely and get to fast in a way that you never could irl. It’s the quantity of driving that allows you to move forwards faster in sim. It’s the endless opportunities to play and explore, safely, that make sim so valuable. Imho.