PDA

View Full Version : Science Shows What Judges are Looking At



Mike Matson
Jul. 12, 2011, 08:12 PM
Interesting. Note the conclusion about keying in on the hind cannon bones.

http://www.eurodressage.com/equestrian/2011/07/12/inga-wolframm-visal-attention-patterns-grand-prix-dressage-judging

Excerpt:

Results show that:

- for movements performed at the trot, judges pay significantly more attention to the front of the horse than to the back or the rider.

- for movements performed at the canter, judges also pay significantly more attention to the front of the horse than to the back or the rider.

It was also possible to determine the judges’ visual attention patterns for each movement. For example:

in the piaffe, judges focused on average 25% of fixations on the hind cannon bone, 15% on the forearm, 9% on the front cannon bone, 9% on the rider’s lower leg, and 8% on the shoulder.

in the passage, judges focused on average 19% of their fixations on the hind cannon bone, 13% on the forearm, 10% on the shoulder and the front cannon bone, and 9% on the rider’s lower leg.

in the flying changes, judges fixated an average of 15% on the knee, 12% on the forearm, 11% on the front cannon bone, 9% on the hind cannon bone, and 6% on the hocks.

in the pirouettes, judges concentrated on average 17% of visual fixations on the hind cannon bone, 11% on the hocks, 8% on the shoulder and the mouth, 7% on the forearm and the front cannon bone, and 6% on the rider’s lower leg.

Current findings clearly suggest that judges base their assessment of the total performance on their observation of all body parts, but pay special attention to specific parts of the horse. While the front of the horse as a whole seems to provide information that is most useful in determining the quality of the overall performance, the hind cannon bone features very strongly in most exercises as a point of visual focus.

pluvinel
Jul. 12, 2011, 08:57 PM
So what's the p-value on the conclusions.....

Mike Matson
Jul. 12, 2011, 09:57 PM
If I remember my statistics correctly, I'll go with the E-value. ;)

dragonharte8
Jul. 12, 2011, 10:14 PM
I find it interesting in viewing the picture that shows the locations judges look at.
Question: if you are looking at these singular locations how can you 'really' view the whole picture?
I was taught to observe the dressage horse by never concentrating on a particular location but rather to take in sections and the whole image. In other words, I will look at the whole forehand or the whole hindquarter, but more importantly I will take in the whole picture and this is when mistakes really begin to appear. Taking in the whole picture will clarify faulty tempo, trailing hindquarters, etc.....JMHO

AlterBy
Jul. 12, 2011, 10:27 PM
I find it interesting in viewing the picture that shows the locations judges look at.
Question: if you are looking at these singular locations how can you 'really' view the whole picture?
I was taught to observe the dressage horse by never concentrating on a particular location but rather to take in sections and the whole image. In other words, I will look at the whole forehand or the whole hindquarter, but more importantly I will take in the whole picture and this is when mistakes really begin to appear. Taking in the whole picture will clarify faulty tempo, trailing hindquarters, etc.....JMHO

When is the last time you judged at a dressage show?
What do you know about judging?

Applecore
Jul. 12, 2011, 10:54 PM
I find it interesting in viewing the picture that shows the locations judges look at.
Question: if you are looking at these singular locations how can you 'really' view the whole picture?
I was taught to observe the dressage horse by never concentrating on a particular location but rather to take in sections and the whole image. In other words, I will look at the whole forehand or the whole hindquarter, but more importantly I will take in the whole picture and this is when mistakes really begin to appear. Taking in the whole picture will clarify faulty tempo, trailing hindquarters, etc.....JMHO

The thing is, the human eye can't actually take in a 'whole picture' - it focuses on tiny areas at a time. The eye tracking software I'm familiar with can look at, essentially, how many milliseconds the eye focuses on the different parts of a whole - the brain, then constructs the 'whole' image we 'see'.

Here's a pretty clear, quick demo of what eye tracking is all about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo_a2cfBUGc
Although it's obviously for a stationary image, you can imagine how it would work for a moving one. I think it's a pretty cool idea to apply it to better understand how judges perceive dressage horses (but then I'm a neuro/psych geek like that :yes:). I just hope people won't mis-interpret the results as 'aha! the judges are only looking at the forehand! they are all backwards!' when that's really not at all what the study was set up/able to determine.

siegi b.
Jul. 13, 2011, 08:31 AM
I'm with Applecore and would also like to repeat her last sentence which - to me - is a really important observation.

" I just hope people won't mis-interpret the results as 'aha! the judges are only looking at the forehand! they are all backwards!' when that's really not at all what the study was set up/able to determine."

Thank you, Applecore!

grayarabpony
Jul. 13, 2011, 08:43 AM
The last sentence states that "the hind cannon bone features very strongly in most exercises as a point of visual focus" so I don't know how anyone could come to the conclusion that applecore is talking about.

Unfortunately, looking at the hind legs doesn't mean the judges are judging to the standards in any case.

pluvinel
Jul. 13, 2011, 09:03 AM
There is no statement of the hypothesis being tested
There is no statement of the methodology used to remove bias
There is no statement of the statistical tests used
There is no statement of the gage reproducibility are reliability
There is no peer review of the work

There is no basis on which to conclude that the conclusions are valid

Velvet
Jul. 13, 2011, 10:14 AM
Interesting. Note the conclusion about keying in on the hind cannon bones.



In piaffe? It makes COMPLETE sense. Why's that an issue? Why so "interesting?" :confused:

CFFarm
Jul. 13, 2011, 10:27 AM
For some reason I keep getting "page not available" when I try to bring it up. I would think the judges eyes would move around. I know as a humble observer I try to take in as much of the overall picture as possible but one has to look at something. Maybe the incorrect movement catches the judges eye as much as looking for the correct one. Does the report specify that?

Mike Matson
Jul. 13, 2011, 11:18 AM
In piaffe? It makes COMPLETE sense. Why's that an issue? Why so "interesting?" :confused:

Did you not read the last sentence?

Mike Matson
Jul. 13, 2011, 11:20 AM
For some reason I keep getting "page not available" when I try to bring it up. I would think the judges eyes would move around. I know as a humble observer I try to take in as much of the overall picture as possible but one has to look at something. Maybe the incorrect movement catches the judges eye as much as looking for the correct one. Does the report specify that?


It looks like Astrid took the page down.

Tamara in TN
Jul. 13, 2011, 11:23 AM
Well ummm to interject where "angels fear to tread" ;>
the hind end (esp the cannons) are the "rear wheel drive"
for a horse,
any horse
all horses

none are freed from the laws of mechanics

Tamara

Lost_at_C
Jul. 13, 2011, 11:47 AM
You can find the same article, and also a link to a more detailed summary of the study, on the FEI website. http://www.fei.org/disciplines/officials-organisers/news/visual-attention-grand-prix-dressage-judges

ETA: I can't comment on this particular project because I know nothing about it, but I would point out that Inga Wolframm is a reputable researcher and her previous studies HAVE been peer reviewed. For whatever that's worth.

netg
Jul. 13, 2011, 12:31 PM
You can find the same article, and also a link to a more detailed summary of the study, on the FEI website. http://www.fei.org/disciplines/officials-organisers/news/visual-attention-grand-prix-dressage-judges

ETA: I can't comment on this particular project because I know nothing about it, but I would point out that Inga Wolframm is a reputable researcher and her previous studies HAVE been peer reviewed. For whatever that's worth.

To me that's worth quite a bit to know. Because it means that likely it's published or going to be published somewhere with the numbers behind it - but the FEI just picked and chose what they wanted to share, likely without a full understanding of statistics. (And I say this as someone who only knows enough to ask for assistance of an expert when publishing anything regarding statistics!)

Velvet
Jul. 13, 2011, 01:00 PM
Did you not read the last sentence?

You didn't point to only the end, you pointed to all of the comments as a whole (at least that's how it read) and the cannon bone is figured into nearly all of them. I just picked the piaffe as an example of where I see it as being even more important, as a it is a directive in how to judge the piaffe.

Mike, sometimes I just wish you'd just come out and say what you mean. A lot of times you post without comment as if in hopes someone will stir a pot for you. Other times you hint at something, but then either obfuscate or just leave the thought incomplete.

I'm (OBVIOUSLY) all about saying what you mean--and just laying it all out there. Maybe you're just afraid my stalkers will start coming after you? :lol:

Mike Matson
Jul. 13, 2011, 08:29 PM
You want me to be a Velvet clone? :eek: ;)

Arathita
Jul. 13, 2011, 08:33 PM
There is no statement of the hypothesis being tested
There is no statement of the methodology used to remove bias
There is no statement of the statistical tests used
There is no statement of the gage reproducibility are reliability
There is no peer review of the work

There is no basis on which to conclude that the conclusions are valid

Yes, you are correct with these observations. I agree with you.

suzy
Jul. 14, 2011, 12:39 PM
You want me to be a Velvet clone? :eek: ;)

Oh someone please save us from that, or I'll have to pull out the frying pan, Aunt Esther's purse, or (horrrors!) both!!!

Sunsets
Jul. 14, 2011, 01:06 PM
There is no statement of the hypothesis being tested
There is no statement of the methodology used to remove bias
There is no statement of the statistical tests used
There is no statement of the gage reproducibility are reliability
There is no peer review of the work

There is no basis on which to conclude that the conclusions are valid
Reply With Quote

Here is more info: http://www.fei.org/sites/default/files/file/OFFICIALS%20%26%20ORGANISERS/News/visual_attention_FEI_presentation.pdf

Their methodology is described in more detail and descriptive statistics are listed for each movement.

As for the hypothesis tested, I think this is classified as an "observational study".

Really, I think it is best to judge this study as a work in progress, much like a presentation at a scientific meeting.

4xhoof
Jul. 14, 2011, 03:35 PM
The topic of judging seems to come up frequently. There are some interesting comments about the topic on this forum as well:

http://forums.barnmice.com/t43716726/dressage-judging-why-is-it-subjective/