ResultsAnonymous · updated 2026-09-12
What the studies have measured, as they measure it
Every study on this site publishes its data as they come in, anonymised, whether or not they say anything flattering. The studies are designed and run by Dr. Satwant Kumar, a physician and vision neuroscientist. This page is regenerated from the study database; the numbers below are the numbers the studies hold. Sessions are labelled S01, S02, … in order of upload, and nothing else about a participant appears.
Study 1Trap occlusion
How early can you call the line?
A clay leaves the trench at a small angle left or right of straightaway, is visible for a fixed few tens of milliseconds, and is then hidden. The observer says left or right. An adaptive procedure finds, at each viewing time, the smallest launch angle the observer calls correctly three times in four. That angle is the threshold; smaller is better. 8 sessions from 8 people are shown: 4 elite or international shooters, 2 club shooters, 1 novice or non-shooter and 1 who did not say, 2026-08-05 to 2026-08-29.
The longer the target is seen, the smaller the angle that can be called
One line per session, coloured by self-reported experience. Both axes are logarithmic. Hover or tap a point for its confidence interval and trial count.
Experience shows in the numbers
The same thresholds grouped by experience at each viewing time. One dot per session; the bar is the group median of the measurable thresholds.
Medians by group and viewing time
Threshold in degrees of launch angle, with the sideways drift it amounts to at the distance where the target disappears. A clay is 11 cm across.
| Visible for | Distance at occlusion | Elite / international | Club / developing | Novice / non-shooter | Not stated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33 ms | 17 m | 0.28° ≈ 8 cm n = 4 | 0.60° ≈ 18 cm n = 2 | — | — |
| 50 ms | 17 m | 0.23° ≈ 7 cm n = 3 (+1 at floor) | 0.35° ≈ 11 cm n = 2 | — | — |
| 67 ms | 18 m | 0.11° ≈ 3 cm n = 2 (+2 at floor) | 0.29° ≈ 9 cm n = 2 | — | — |
| 100 ms | 19 m | 0.13° ≈ 4 cm n = 2 (+2 at floor) | — | — | — |
What the numbers mean on the range
Take the 50 ms condition. When the target disappears it is about 17 m from the shooter, and the median threshold of 0.23° is a sideways drift of about 7 cm from the straightaway line, less than one clay width (11 cm). That is what "calling the line" resolves to: a drift of a few centimetres, at that distance, in 50 ms.
What one session looks like underneath: S04, elite / international
The psychometric function behind each threshold at 33 ms, 50 ms, 67 ms: the proportion of correct calls against launch angle, the maximum-likelihood fit, and where it crosses the 75% criterion.
Why the measurement can be trusted, and where it cannot yet
- The screen is calibrated, not assumed. Scale from a standard plastic card (driving-licence size), viewing distance by the blind-spot method, refresh rate measured before the first trial. Every angle is in degrees at the eye.
- Every stimulus is a whole number of frames, and a trial in which a frame arrived late is rejected rather than analysed with the wrong duration: 171 of 2,544 main trials so far (7%). One session (S01) lost 155 of its 318 trials to frames delivered late by a display running slower than it had measured; those trials are excluded and its thresholds rest on the rest, which is why its intervals are wide. The study now stops a session early when that starts to happen.
- Attention is checked. Easy probe trials are interleaved throughout; a lapse there means the observer was not looking. Across every session shown, 0 of 144 probes were missed.
- A number the task cannot measure is not reported as a number. When the fit lands below the smallest angle presented, the result is "below that angle", shown hollow. 8 of 34 fitted thresholds are in that state; they are the best shooters at the longer viewing times.
- A display that cannot present the durations is refused. 2 sessions ran on a display that measured 30 Hz, below the 60 Hz the durations need: there the 50 ms condition was presented as 67 ms, so two conditions collapsed into one. They are left out of everything on this page, and the study now refuses such a display before the first trial.
- What this is not. A handful of people, self-reported experience, one session each, and no peer review. It is an interim look at a running study, not a finding, and nothing here is a claim that any training or equipment improves anything.
What the first sessions changed
The study runs on a stated protocol and the protocol is versioned. The sessions above led to protocol 4.0.0: the 100 ms viewing time was dropped, because for experienced shooters it mostly sat below the task's floor and taught nothing; the three remaining durations are exact multiples of a 60 Hz frame; a display under 60 Hz is now refused outright rather than warned about; and a session that starts losing trials to late frames is stopped early rather than run to the end. Session length is unchanged.
Study 2Lens tint and clay contrast
Does the model predict which lens helps whose eyes?
Each observer's contrast sensitivity is measured on three cone-contrast axes and on a clay-sized moving disc; then, for six lens classes presented blind as faint moving discs, the study finds the fraction of each lens's real clay–background contrast at which the observer can just tell the direction of motion. The physical model predicts that fraction from the observer's own thresholds, and the comparison is the point of the study. 1 session under the current protocol from 2 participants, and 1 earlier session shown but not pooled.
Across the 1 pooled session, the measured multiplier was on median 3.3× the model's prediction from the observer's own thresholds, and the model ordered the lenses with a rank agreement of τ = +0.33 against the study's gate of 0.6. The model is being tested on its absolute scale as well as its order, and a moving clay-sized target is harder than the model's static thresholds imply; with this little data that is a first reading, not a verdict.
Lenses: what the eyes measured against what the model predicted
For each lens class, the multiplier of the lens's real clay–background contrast at which the observer could just tell the direction of motion (filled), and the model's prediction from that observer's own thresholds (diamond). Lower is better; the gap between the two symbols is the model's error.
Predicted against measured, with each session's rank agreement
Every usable lens condition. On the dashed line the model was exactly right. Kendall's τ per session: +1 means the model ordered the lenses exactly as the observer's eyes did, 0 means no relation.
Every observer's sensitivity profile
Threshold contrast on the four measures, one dot per session; lower is more sensitive. Bars are medians of pooled thresholds once there are two or more.
What one session looks like underneath: S02, clay shooter
The psychometric function behind each threshold: proportion correct against contrast or multiplier, the maximum-likelihood fit, and where it crosses the criterion.