Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: On eye dominance and shooting

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    out of here

    On eye dominance and shooting

    Background:

    I’m right eye dominant and right handed. I started shooting red dots within a few months of starting shooting. The bulk of my dry fire and live fire has been with dots. Most of my shooting involves movement and vision tracking at very high speeds and efficiency. I can shoot irons competently now that I shoot pistol dots well.

    I recently started shooting long guns and that requires non-dominant eye shooting on weak side.

    I have some observations and hypotheses from my own experience and testing.

    @Totem Polar
    @Clusterfrack

    Ready for nerdery?

    Here we go.

    One of my guiding philosophies for learning and performance is that the more direct the input and output, the more efficient, rapid, reproducible and accurate. For macro things like draws and trigger you can see it on video.

    But there are micro components that you cannot see.

    From neurobiology, the FASTEST reflexes come from the simplest feedback loops. One neuron in and one neuron out. Short distance, high fidelity, less disruption possibilities.

    To me in shooting, that’s a goal for vision and targeting.

    Iron shooters and lens occluded dot shooters use their non-dominant eye to “superimpose” the target and sight from dominant eye together. This also happens when you have a large, bright reticle.

    But how complicated is that wiring compared to direct, single eye feedback of a small dot on a target?

    In the visual processing of the brain, binocular vision is quite complicated and it requires a lot of processing and ocular muscle coordination.

    If you were to design a system for speed and efficiency, you’d want the most direct input and output.

    From our lizard brains, the very ancient parts of our vision centers are extremely good at linear processing and comparison of simple shapes. Single dot on target. We are set up for that. Snap up the fly when it gets on target.

    But if you have to bring in separate eye integration for the comparison, it slows things down and adds opportunities for failure. (Note this is different than binocular vision where you can see both target and sights like if you were actually a lizard hunting, we’re talking about separating out target vision with sight vision into different channels here).

    ——————


    Personally I shoot irons predominantly single eye processing even though I use both eyes for depth and motion and both eyes are open. You can do the experiment yourself by putting Vaseline on the non-dominant sunglass lens and see how that affects your processing and shooting at speed.

    I thought maybe it was just strong eye dominance, but it isn’t. Because when I went to weak eye PCC it was the same thing being single eye processing with the weak eye now.

    It’s also the issue I found in loss of speed and fidelity when I was using circle dot on PCC and had to use non-dominant eye for target superimposition. I’ve switched back to pistol dot single eye processing on PCC with marked improvement in tracking coordination at speed.

    Grauffel I heard shoots PCC with single dot reticle like he does pistol which is different than a lot of rifle predominant shooters. Similarly Max Michel, Christian Sailer, and JJ Racaza don’t advocate for the taped lens training as early dot adopters compared to Mason Lane and Ben Stoeger who are iron shooters that might be more trained in their binocular integration.

    You could say “maybe I should train binocular” because it can be done.

    My point is that for biology, the simplest and most direct feedback loop is “best” so that’s what I want.

    That’s my nerdery $0.02 for the day.
    Last edited by JCN; 04-07-2022 at 09:30 AM.

  2. #2
    Deadeye Dick Clusterfrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Wokelandia
    Interesting question. I don't have time right now to respond in much detail, but here are some thoughts:

    Neuroscience and speed: it is likely that the "lizard brain" and the idea of speed developing by the "simplest and most direct feedback loop" (fewer neurons involved) is a misplaced analogy. The mammalian brain doesn't work that way. Command neuron theory was rejected 30 years ago, and has been replaced by a 'holistic' theory of brain function. Nicolelis' work on brain-machine-interface to the motor cortex is especially revealing.

    https://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/19/4681
    https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1702746114

    I found an interesting study on vision in sports including shooting, but haven't had a chance to read it in detail:
    http://www.sportvision.co.uk/assets/...edominance.pdf

    My personal approach:
    1. I don't close an eye for any reason if I can help it. Maybe it's the Timmy in me, but I want both eyes fully functional and don't want to rely on tape, glasses, etc. to do stuff.
    2. Rarely, but sometimes when I'm shooting a rifle support-side with an optic I have to close my right eye momentarily to bring the reticle into focus and on target.
    3. I have always shot irons with both eyes open, and found it simple to switch to a dot on a handgun. I never used tape or blocked the optic.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCN View Post
    Background:

    I’m right eye dominant and right handed. I started shooting red dots within a few months of starting shooting. The bulk of my dry fire and live fire has been with dots. Most of my shooting involves movement and vision tracking at very high speeds and efficiency. I can shoot irons competently now that I shoot pistol dots well.

    I recently started shooting long guns and that requires non-dominant eye shooting on weak side.

    I have some observations and hypotheses from my own experience and testing.

    @Totem Polar
    @Clusterfrack

    Ready for nerdery?

    Here we go.

    One of my guiding philosophies for learning and performance is that the more direct the input and output, the more efficient, rapid, reproducible and accurate. For macro things like draws and trigger you can see it on video.

    But there are micro components that you cannot see.

    From neurobiology, the FASTEST reflexes come from the simplest feedback loops. One neuron in and one neuron out. Short distance, high fidelity, less disruption possibilities.

    To me in shooting, that’s a goal for vision and targeting.

    Iron shooters and lens occluded dot shooters use their non-dominant eye to “superimpose” the target and sight from dominant eye together. This also happens when you have a large, bright reticle.

    But how complicated is that wiring compared to direct, single eye feedback of a small dot on a target?

    In the visual processing of the brain, binocular vision is quite complicated and it requires a lot of processing and ocular muscle coordination.

    If you were to design a system for speed and efficiency, you’d want the most direct input and output.

    From our lizard brains, the very ancient parts of our vision centers are extremely good at linear processing and comparison of simple shapes. Single dot on target. We are set up for that. Snap up the fly when it gets on target.

    But if you have to bring in separate eye integration for the comparison, it slows things down and adds opportunities for failure. (Note this is different than binocular vision where you can see both target and sights like if you were actually a lizard hunting, we’re talking about separating out target vision with sight vision into different channels here).

    ——————


    Personally I shoot irons predominantly single eye processing even though I use both eyes for depth and motion and both eyes are open. You can do the experiment yourself by putting Vaseline on the non-dominant sunglass lens and see how that affects your processing and shooting at speed.

    I thought maybe it was just strong eye dominance, but it isn’t. Because when I went to weak eye PCC it was the same thing being single eye processing with the weak eye now.

    It’s also the issue I found in loss of speed and fidelity when I was using circle dot on PCC and had to use non-dominant eye for target superimposition. I’ve switched back to pistol dot single eye processing on PCC with marked improvement in tracking coordination at speed.

    Grauffel I heard shoots PCC with single dot reticle like he does pistol which is different than a lot of rifle predominant shooters. Similarly Max Michel, Christian Sailer, and JJ Racaza don’t advocate for the taped lens training as early dot adopters compared to Mason Lane and Ben Stoeger who are iron shooters that might be more trained in their binocular integration.

    You could say “maybe I should train binocular” because it can be done.

    My point is that for biology, the simplest and most direct feedback loop is “best” so that’s what I want.

    That’s my nerdery $0.02 for the day.
    "You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
    Shabbat shalom, motherf***ers! --Mordechai Jefferson Carver

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    out of here
    Quote Originally Posted by Clusterfrack View Post
    Neuroscience and speed: it is likely that the "lizard brain" and the idea of speed developing by the "simplest and most direct feedback loop" (fewer neurons involved) is a misplaced analogy. The mammalian brain doesn't work that way. Command neuron theory was rejected 30 years ago, and has been replaced by a 'holistic' theory of brain function. Nicolelis' work on brain-machine-interface to the motor cortex is especially revealing.
    Disagree with this. I’m not talking about complex processing. I’m talking primary visual cortex edge detection “yes / no” processing. Very much a basic animal function.

    Basically versions of this:

    https://med.libretexts.org/Bookshelv..._Visual_Cortex

    Single cell processing.

    Name:  AFE8828C-D216-45DD-8C86-C92B8AD58FBD.jpeg
Views: 376
Size:  29.4 KB



    At the most basic level the most rudimentary parts of the brain can recognize and react to shapes and orientation.

    “Go” when dot / streak aligns.

  4. #4
    Deadeye Dick Clusterfrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Wokelandia

    On eye dominance and shooting

    I understand, but am still skeptical that visual processing speed for real world tasks can be reduced to simple circuits. Whether speed is enhanced by reducing the input to one eye is an interesting question. I’m confident the data are out there.
    "You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
    Shabbat shalom, motherf***ers! --Mordechai Jefferson Carver

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    out of here
    Quote Originally Posted by Clusterfrack View Post
    I understand, but am still skeptical that visual processing speed for real world tasks can be reduced to simple circuits. Whether speed is enhanced by reducing the input to one eye is an interesting question. I’m confident the data are out there.
    I think maybe a clarification. I’m not talking about reducing input to one eye.

    I’m also not talking about closing one eye.

    I was talking about split vision speed and accuracy.

    Where you’re getting primary accuracy input from two comparative channels versus primary comparison on one channel.

    Data would have to be very specific scenario like what we are talking about in action pistol.

    It would be interesting if you did the mini experiment of taping your forward lens and see if you had any loss of performance. I think you might not as an iron trained shooter.

    I’m personally a primary eye shooter even with irons. I have a performance loss when forced to compare eyes to get the edge detection data.

  6. #6
    Deadeye Dick Clusterfrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Wokelandia
    Ah, I understand now. Superimposed inputs vs. one.

    I’m still betting the data are out there. NeuroPsych has done a ton of eye tracking studies.
    "You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
    Shabbat shalom, motherf***ers! --Mordechai Jefferson Carver

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    out of here
    Quote Originally Posted by Clusterfrack View Post
    Ah, I understand now. Superimposed inputs vs. one.

    I’m still betting the data are out there. NeuroPsych has done a ton of eye tracking studies.
    I think the data would be clouded in traditional existing data.

    Here is the kind of experiment that might help.

    Olympic and world champion level bullseye.

    https://www.wired.com/2016/08/olympi...-like-cyborgs/

    You have to believe that if there was any advantage, they would evolve to exploit it with regard to accuracy.

    They choose to go full single eye target and sight comparison rather than use non-dominant eye when it comes to pure accuracy.

    Name:  F491C346-E19C-47F3-BA06-068CA96763DD.jpg
Views: 366
Size:  33.5 KB

    I’m going to believe that supports an advantage in accuracy for single eye input.

    The experiment would be to take a bullseye shooter with a dot and have them shoot optic taped versus single eye processing.

    For action pistol, I use my non dominant eye for depth and terrain processing along with binocular vision for movement tracking.

    But it was striking how distinctly uncomfortable I was when I started PCC with the circle dot and now had to start bringing in superimposition for shooting accuracy at speed.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    out of here
    It was interesting because I initially attributed it to extreme right eye dominance, but learned that wasn’t actually the issue because it followed when I went to nondominant eye weak side PCC.

    It was because I was specifically sight tracking with same eye regardless of dominance.

  9. #9
    Site Supporter rdtompki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Treasure Valley, ID
    Not having binocular vision let me throw in an observation that may be relevant. I've always heavily favored my right (dominant) eye and a eye operation for exotropia at age 10 (65 years ago) didn't quite get things lined up so fusing binocular displays, fusing red dot (right eye) over visual field (left eye) ain't going to happen. Since recent cataract surgery on my left eye my uncorrected distance vision in my left eye (plano) is better than my right eye (1.5D). I find over a certain distance regime without glasses my brain is using my left eye; first time I've ever seen this.

    Relevance: Disparities in vision quality may be significant in terms of an individual's approach to both red dot and iron sight shooting.


    FWIW: The only binocular display I've every been able to fuse is the F-35 "helmet", actually a Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS). In 1967 post graduation I couldn't even fuse the yellow line and the red dot field when I was considering enlisting in the Air Force with the intent of going for pilot training.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    out of here
    @Clusterfrack

    I’m doing a little research.

    Have this set up with a 2.5x optic and working to see what I notice with both eyes open and shifting vision from one eye to the other.

    Name:  72F10147-1DE4-405E-856F-A92EACD3E79E.jpg
Views: 225
Size:  74.1 KB

    Perhaps due to the magnification, the superimposition is off on windage where it is not off when I do occluded using a traditional red dot….

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •