Seeing is faster than listening, because...

[benos]

I got this in email, from a guy who bought my book from Amazon. So I thought I'd stick it in here, since he probably won't.

> I was interested in your experiences in response to visual and auditory

> stimuli when shooting metal. My son is a Sports Physiologist and has studied

> this subject, particularly with respect to starting stimuli for sprinters.

> Some of this work was presented on Fox Sports Network's Sport Science series.

> They found that sprinter's starts were faster in response to sound than to

> light. The explanation is that although visual stimuli reach the senses faster

> than sound stimuli, the brain can process the less complicated sound signals

> faster than sight signals. Do you think that your opposite findings when

> shooting metal are a result of training?

My first feeling is mostly no.

On steel, "reading the sights" gives your brain the info it needs to call a hit or miss faster than does listening for the hit. Probably for at least two reasons. The more obvious reason is related to the flght time of the bullet, and the time it takes for the sound of miss to reach back to your ears/brain. This becomes more apparent once the target is farther than about 15 yards.

The more subtle reason seeing is faster (which is related to training, but not technically the result of it) is that, when seeing "properly" (seeing everything al the time as opposed to just seeing individual snapshot sight pictures) - you're in a sense calling the shot visually just before the shot actually fires. Or another way to say it - you're seeing the target and the sights as as they are all coming into alignment.

Brian

[38supPat]

I think there are two different circumstances here. Inputs from shooting a given shot, vs. starts. I suspect he might be right if he was talking about a start buxxer vs. say turning targets or a light or some other visual "start" signal. But in an ongoing constant feedback situation, the eyes have it.

[uscbigdawg]

Pat's where I am on distinguishing the visual input. In making your called shot, it's when the trigger is pulled and round is being fired that you see (and know) where those sights are at. Basically stating that before the bullet gets there, you have received all the input you NEED in order to move on to the next target.

Rich

[Flexmoney]

I've always believed that my reaction time was faster when responding to auditory input versus visual input. the limited testing I've done supports that.

That is a whole lot different waiting around on a plate to go ding.

... you're in a sense calling the shot visually just before the shot actually fires.

I'm pretty certain this is true.

[gotm4]

Or is simple terms:

You see at the speed of light. You hear at the speed of sound.

[Flexmoney]

I don't think that much of a factor, really.

When a bullet hits steel and generates sound...that is the starting point for our feedback, if we are waiting for auditory feedback.

Our vision already knows...before the sound is even generated.

[redmanfixit]

Perhaps it could partly be because of the difference in conditions. The runner mentioned is waiting to engage in the activity, to begin. The shooter IS engaged. Actively entrained in the moment. Perhaps the processing lag is shorter in that case. The visual cortex is huge, in proportion to the rest of the brain. It ties into everything.

"It is possible that linear time is an illusion, all events may be taking place at the moment of the big bang!"

-Stephen Hawking-

[MemphisMechanic]

Agreed.

Suppose the RO were holding the timer in your line of vision for the start. In THAT case, I think staring at the first target you're going to engage and listening would be faster than watching for his buzzer-finger to move, or whatever you'd be doing to acquire a visual starting cue from the timer. His analogy to a starting pistol in a 40-yard dash holds water here. Sprinters heads are usually down while they listen for the starting pistol. They don't watch his finger pull the trigger.

But hitting the target yourself in the middle of a stage is an entirely different situation. When you've called the shot, you know before the gun begins to recoil that you've drilled the popper.

I think what the Amazon guy is missing is that we're not comparing SEEING the popper get hit, to HEARING the popper get hit. We're not watching the popper. We're watching the sights. And that lets you do crazy things like complete the transition to the next target by the time the 'DING' has been processed by your brain. And that'll probably be faster each and every time.

Edited November 29, 2008 by MemphisMechanic

[Overhung]

I put a post up in the wrong forum- it should be here- about watching all levels of shooters go through some stages- its in techniques. Individual reaction times not withstanding, the differences in light and sound at the distances we are typically shooting quickly don't matter all that much.

The true time savings is not the waiting for the steel to hit vs the sight picture, the savings is between shooting fluidly and stop indexing on each plate an waiting for it to fall before you index to the next. It takes only a flash to see the sights pull the trigger and move on. It takes a bit more to see the sights pull the trigger and wait for the feedback. It may only be 1/4 of a second, but per plate, on a 6 plate plate rack, that could be up to 1.25 seconds.

Of all our senses, our sense of taste is the quickest. I am not tasting any of you ROs.

[XRe]

I don't disagree that seeing is faster for calling shots on steel (or any other target) - in essence, I know the location of the hit before the bullet has reached the target to make a sound (and my reaction time starts upon seeing the sights, not upon hearing the sound). I had a pretty clear example of this at the Open Nationals - took a shot on a 35-ish yard popper (I didn't step it off in that crap) and was dismounting the gun and starting to push off as I saw the bullet strike the popper....

Let me throw another one in here, that's less important for shooting steel challenge type stages. Say you're shooting a USPSA/IPSC stage with mixed metal and paper. Now you've got an extra path in the feedback loop that your brain has to follow to drive the gun (part of the "did I hit or not" cycle). Having to add in a decision about how to call the shot (visual or audible) can add as much as .04 or .08 seconds onto the reaction time to the result of each shot. 32 shots in a stage could equal 2.5 seconds, simply because you had to decide mid-stage how to call each shot. Visualization ahead of time with conscious programming of the shot calling type can help with that, but its still switching gears and spending time. Using one method to call shots always gives you a much more consistent (and shorter) stimulus response time.

Your responder's son will understand this as the difference between "triggered response" time and "M3" response time.

[Matt Griffin]

This should be easy to confirm, don't the quick-draw guys use a light on the target as a start signal, rather than a buzzer? That's a direct comparison.

H.

[GentlemanJim]

This is part Physics and part training.

An uncalled shot waiting on the sound of the hit has to include.

1...flight time of bullet to target

2...time of sound to return to shooter

3...individuals reaction time to input.

A called shot will be close to instantainious.(training)

Simple example

45 cal at major 165pf 230gr @ 717fps fired at 25 yds takes about 0.10 seconds to strike target.

Sound will return in about 0.075 seconds

Aproximate reaction time 0.15 seconds

Total time=0.325 seconds...on 5 targets it would be 1.625 seconds

Think about rifle stages ...it takes a full second for sound to return from a target at 350yds.

Jim