Sign in
Animal Behavior & CognitionPLoS ONE
Peer-reviewed journal article

A data-driven analysis of spatiotemporal cues and experience accumulation effects for pitch type prediction

Ryota TakamidoiD, Chiharu Suzuki, Hiroki NakamotoiD

Abstract

Conventional sports anticipation studies have primarily relied on hypothesis-testing paradigms that target predetermined cues. However, such approaches risk overlooking unanticipated sources of predictive information. This study addresses this limitation by introducing data-driven analysis using machine learning (ML) models as a complementary approach to conventional experimental research. Given that predictive cues embedded within movements can enhance the prediction accuracy of ML models, the proposed analysis identified spatiotemporal cues for prediction and quantified the effects of accumulating opponent-specific information across trials. Motion-capture data were collected from eight collegiate baseball pitchers, and joint-angle time series were analyzed using logistic regression models to predict pitch type (fastball vs. breaking ball). Specifically, two analyses were conducted: (1) a sliding time-window analysis to identify when and where predictive cues emerged within target motions and (2) a set-size analysis to evaluate how prediction accuracy varied with dataset size. The main results revealed that (1) predictive cues were distributed across the entire body, but models integrating whole-body information achieved the highest accuracy; (2) informative cues emerged in most body regions around the initiation of the pitchers weight shift; (3) the accumulation of opponent-specific information had a pronounced effect up to approximately 30 pitches; and (4) substantial individual differences existed in when and which cues were effective for pitch-type prediction. Although alignment with human athletes must be carefully examined in future work, these findings highlight the utility of the proposed analysis as a complementary approach to conventional hypothesis-testing experiments.

PDFDOI

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers
Citations
1
FWCI
1.70
Field percentile
top 21%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISColling '18Fanghella '25Maurer '22Qin '25Goettker '23Odet '26
58% semantic matchNeuroscience