The Ecological Approach to Reaction Time: Analyzing Dr. Andrew Wilson’s Perspective

Dr. Andrew Wilson, a leading researcher in ecological psychology and perception-action theory, has spent years challenging how reaction time is captured and analyzed in sports. He has been critical of the way metrics are often isolated from real-world movement constraints, arguing that reaction time is not an independent skill but rather an emergent property of an athlete’s interaction with their environment.

On this, I completely agree.

Reaction time has been misunderstood and misrepresented in sports analytics, scouting, and training. It is not just about how fast an athlete recognizes a stimulus and moves in response—it is a dynamic process shaped by perception, decision-making, and execution.

Most systems, from EEG-based reaction response tests to bat swing trackers, fail to capture this complexity. They either:

1. Measure reaction time in isolation, as if speed alone defines performance.
2. Ignore the full timeline of motor delays and decision timing, assuming that if a player reacts fast, they’ll succeed.

Wilson’s critiques of poor methodology and non-ecological testing environments are spot on. And while he stops at identifying these flaws, I have spent years building a solution to them.

How Reaction Time Is Captured and Why Most Systems Get It Wrong

“Reaction time is not something that exists in isolation—it’s not just a raw response speed. It’s shaped by the task, the constraints, and the environment.” —Dr. Andrew Wilson

This is where Wilson and I again completely agree. I have long argued that reaction response cannot be viewed in a vacuum, and yet, many sports scientists have made exactly that mistake.

A perfect example of this, from one of my articles written in January 2019, is the work of deCervo, a company that used EEG headsets to measure hitters’ neural activity when deciding to swing. Their goal? To be the first to quantify the precise moment a hitter commits to a swing.

This should have been a groundbreaking study. But instead, it revealed a deep misunderstanding of what reaction time actually is in a hitting context.

What deCervo attempted to measure, I had already been capturing since 2017—through a fundamentally different methodology that I later patented. Instead of using EEG headsets in a simulated, non-ecological environment, my approach measured actual motor response timing in real-world hitting conditions.

What deCervo Got Wrong

deCervo placed hitters in front of computer screens and measured their neural activity as they watched simulated pitches. Their conclusion? Elite hitters identify pitches faster and produce quicker responses.

They weren’t wrong—but they completely missed the reason why.

- Reaction response is only one component of successful hitting.
- Many non-elite hitters have faster reaction times than elite hitters.
- The key to elite hitting is the coordination of movement within a constrained window of time, not just reacting quickly.

Their methodology failed to account for all the factors that contribute to motor latency, beyond simple visuomotor delay or reaction time. They ignored:

- Mechanical response inefficiencies – A hitter’s reaction time may be fast, but if their swing mechanics introduce inefficiencies, they will still be late or mistimed.
- Motor planning delays – Recognizing a pitch does not immediately trigger a swing; the body must execute pre-programmed motor patterns, and inefficient patterns add to the delay.
- Cognitive interference – An athlete who is over-analyzing, second-guessing, or consciously trying to control their movement introduces hesitation, further delaying motor execution.
- Absence of urgency – Their test was conducted on a computer screen, without a real pitch traveling toward the hitter at game speed. There was no danger, no pressure, and no consequence—all of which influence real-world reaction and motor execution.
- Fight-or-flight response consequences – In a real game, urgency or perceived danger may induce excessive muscle tension, which inhibits a smooth, efficient swing. deCervo’s methodology would never reveal this, further exposing its flaws.
- Incomplete environmental stimuli – In a real game, hitters are processing not just the pitch’s velocity and spin, but also their own body positioning, the pitcher’s mechanics, and situational variables. The lack of real-world environmental constraints in their study made the findings largely irrelevant to actual hitting.

Failure to Measure the Quality of Response

deCervo’s methodology only captured when a hitter reacted, not whether that reaction was correct or effective. Their test provided no insight into the quality of the decision, only whether it was fast or slow. Seeing a curveball early and committing too soon is a fast decision—but a bad response. Recognizing pitch type is only part of the equation; executing a quality swing at the right moment is what actually matters.

- Was the decision to swing good or bad? Their study measured neural response speed, but a quick response does not mean a good decision. A hitter can quickly commit to a bad swing on a breaking ball in the dirt.
- Did the motor response reflect a well-trained hitter or just a reflex? A player with poor mechanics but fast neural speed could appear “elite” in their test, even if their swing wouldn’t hold up in a game.
- Did the swing adjust to the pitch in real time? Hitters don’t just swing or not swing—they make micro-adjustments mid-motion based on pitch trajectory and late recognition. deCervo failed to account for this online control, which is a defining trait of elite hitters.

What deCervo Failed to Ask

By ignoring the full scope of motor response, deCervo left critical questions unanswered:

- What delays motor response beyond pure reaction time?
- What prevents a player from reacting to a pitch, even when they recognize it?
- What cognitive and physical factors contribute to hesitation or mistimed swings?
- How does mechanical inefficiency compound reaction delays?
- How does urgency, consequence, or physiological stress influence response quality?

Instead, they assumed reaction response equaled pitch recognition, and by extension, hitting ability. But hitting is not just about reacting fast—it’s about reacting at the right time, with the right mechanics, under real-world constraints.

The Components of Reaction Time That Matter

Wilson’s ecological approach focuses on how reaction emerges within a task environment rather than being a fixed skill. This directly aligns with my work on Swing Delay™ and Time to Impact (TTI), which capture reaction time in the context of an actual swing.

How Swing Delay™ Captures the Full Picture of Motor Latency

Most systems measure reaction response as a simple cause-and-effect event—stimulus occurs, response follows. But this overlooks the multiple layers of delay that impact a hitter’s ability to execute a swing on time.

Swing Delay™ is not just reaction time—it is a complete quantification of all motor latencies between the “go” signal and the initiation of the bat’s forward movement.

This includes:

- Visuomotor delay – The inherent neurological lag between seeing a pitch and transmitting a response signal to the muscles.
- Motor preparation inefficiencies – Delays caused by improper pre-movement readiness, hesitation, or a failure to smoothly transition from perception to action.
- Biomechanical inefficiencies – Mechanical flaws that extend the time it takes for the bat to initiate movement toward the intended swing path.
- Cognitive interference – Over-processing, second-guessing, or conscious mechanical focus that interrupts automatic motor execution.
- Environmental response adjustment – The ability (or failure) to make micro-adjustments to swing timing based on pitch velocity, movement, or deception.

Unlike traditional reaction time tests, Swing Delay™ accounts for all these elements and provides a measurable, objective number that describes a hitter’s actual time-based response efficiency.

But Swing Delay™ is only part of the picture. Once the swing has been initiated, additional mechanical delays separate reaction inefficiencies from the efficiency of the swing itself.

Time to Impact (TTI): Separating Reaction Delays from Swing Execution

Time to Impact (TTI) is the complete measurement of a hitter’s swing timing efficiency, incorporating both reaction-related latencies and the actual mechanical execution of the swing.

TTI consists of two key components:

1. Swing Delay™ – The total time lost between the “go” signal and the moment the bat begins forward movement. This includes reaction time, motor preparation inefficiencies, and biomechanical latency before the swing starts.
2. Mechanical Swing Time – The duration of the swing itself, from first bat movement to contact. This measures pure swing efficiency and is independent of reaction-based delays.

By separating these two components, TTI reveals whether a late swing is the result of reaction inefficiencies (Swing Delay™) or an inefficient swing motion (Mechanical Swing Time).

This is why TTI is crucial:

- A hitter with fast neural reaction times but an inefficient swing will have a low Swing Delay™ but a long Mechanical Swing Time.
- A hitter with perfect mechanics but hesitation in decision commitment will show a long Swing Delay™ but a short Mechanical Swing Time.
- A hitter struggling with both will have an extended TTI, showing both decision-making delays and mechanical inefficiencies.

By quantifying every contributing factor to a delayed swing, TTI exposes what traditional reaction-time measurements fail to capture. It doesn’t just tell you when a hitter reacted—it tells you why their reaction translated into an on-time or late swing.

Inhibitors to Rapid Decision-Making

If reaction time alone was the answer, every player with fast neural processing speeds would be an elite hitter. They aren’t. Why? Because other factors preclude rapid decision-making, including:

- Fear of consequence – A fixation on failure slows response time.
- Cognitive overload – Too much mechanical focus prevents instinctual reaction.
- Lack of experience – Encoded pitch memories make reaction automatic, not conscious.
- Muscle tension – Physiological effects of anxiety interfere with motor execution.

These are the real reasons why a player hesitates at the plate, even when they see the pitch coming.

The Limits of Predictive Models

Dr. Andrew Wilson has been vocal about the flaws in traditional predictive models—particularly those that assume movement is pre-planned rather than adaptive. He argues that predictive models often focus on forecasting possibilities rather than guiding real-time decision-making, making them ineffective tools for training athletes.

This is where Wilson and I see eye to eye. If predictive models do not account for real-time perception-action coupling, they fail to provide useful training insights.

But instead of rejecting predictive models outright, as many in the ecological approach do, I took a different approach: I redefined how predictive modeling should work.

A predictive model, if used correctly, should not just analyze past outcomes—it should actively guide the hitter toward the correct solution in real time.

This is where the algorithms that drive my technologies come in.

How I Solve this Problem

A model is only as good as the data it relies on. That said, predictive models in sports science often fall short because they focus on forecasting outcomes rather than shaping real-time decisions. Wilson and I agree that movement is not pre-planned but dynamically adjusted based on perception-action coupling. Where traditional models fail is in assuming that historical probabilities alone can dictate performance.

This is where I take it a step further. Unlike conventional predictive models that only describe what happened, my approach offers solutions by delivering precise, real-time cues when a swing should be executed—and withholding cues when the optimal decision is to hold back. It accounts for the hitter’s swing profile, game context, and the evolving probabilities of the at-bat, ensuring that hitters are not only aware of what is most likely to happen but also prepared to act or refrain from acting at the optimal moment. Rather than simply predicting what a pitcher is likely to throw, this model actively integrates real-time probability adjustments with actionable timing guidance—ensuring that hitters are not only aware of what is most likely to happen but also prepared to act on it at the optimal moment.

By merging probability-based decision modeling with precise swing timing cues, this approach does more than analyze past outcomes. It dynamically informs the hitter when to swing, when to hold back, and how to adjust in real-time based on evolving conditions—without biasing a particular motor response. The system ensures the hitter receives decision and timing cues while allowing the natural perception-action process to dictate the mechanical execution of the swing.

Rather than relying on static data and past trends, this approach integrates real-world constraints—timing, movement efficiency, and situational awareness—into training. The goal is not just to analyze decision-making but to actively correct it, ensuring that a hitter’s response is optimized in real time rather than adjusted after the fact.

This is a crucial distinction. Conventional predictive models tell you:

“This pitcher throws a slider 42% of the time in a 1-2 count.”

That’s interesting, but what does the hitter actually do with that information?

A solution-based predictive model says:

“Given this probability, your timing metrics, and the constraints of your swing, the optimal decision window for making contact is X milliseconds. The precise moment you should launch your swing is now.”

This is not just about prediction—it is about applying predictive insights in a way that improves execution.

Where Wilson critiques predictive models for failing to integrate perception and action into training, I have taken those principles and built an approach that bridges the gap between recognition and movement. Rather than teaching hitters to react faster, this approach guides them to react correctly in real time.

This is where I extend Wilson’s perspective—not by rejecting predictive models outright but by redesigning them into a tool for actionable decision-making.

Beyond Data Collection: Why Solution-Based Training Matters

Wilson has consistently argued that sports science often collects data for the sake of analysis rather than for application, as have I.

This is a major failing of modern swing tracking systems—they measure orientation metrics, swing speeds, and attack angles but provide no mechanism for correcting errors in real time. More importantly, they treat mechanics as the primary constraint, when in reality, timing is the first-order constraint that dictates all other aspects of the swing.

- They describe what the hitter did, but they do not train the hitter how to do it better.
- They track swing path, but they do not measure decision timing or execution delays.
- They provide data, but they do not provide solutions.

This is the core problem my real-time perceptual feedback and individualized timing adjustments address. By first solving the timing constraint, hitters are freed from compensatory mechanical adjustments and can focus on intent-driven decisions. This shifts the emphasis from mechanical prescription to natural perception-action adjustments, aligning with ecological principles of movement.

By integrating real-time feedback with individualized timing adjustments, hitters do not just see what went wrong—they correct it in the moment, without disrupting their natural movement solutions. Rather than forcing hitters into mechanical models, solving timing first allows them to refine perception-action responses naturally, letting their swing adapt dynamically instead of being artificially constrained.

This shifts the focus from: “Here’s what happened.” to “Here’s how to fix it—right now.”

Wilson critiques the excessive reliance on predictive models that do not consider real-world perception-action interaction—and he’s right. That’s why my approach does not just analyze timing inefficiencies, it eliminates them. By first solving the timing constraint, I enable hitters to make intent-driven decisions without mechanical interference, reinforcing the natural relationship between perception and action.

The Future of Hitting: A Fundamental Shift in Training

This isn’t just an improvement over traditional methods. It’s a completely different way of thinking about hitting development.

Wilson and I both agree that:

- Reaction time alone does not define hitting ability.
- Predictive models fail when they are divorced from real-time perception-action adjustments.
- Training should emphasize solutions, not just data collection.

Where I extend this perspective further is in my approach to real-time correction.

- My system quantifies decision timing inefficiencies and delivers corrective solutions immediately.
- When designed correctly, predictive modeling moves beyond probabilities and delivers precise, actionable cues for decision-making.
- Solution-based training eliminates trial-and-error learning by reinforcing correct timing patterns before errors become ingrained.

This is the difference between static data collection and dynamic skill acquisition.

This is where theory meets practical innovation.

This is the future of hitting.

Final Thoughts

My system does not just expose the flaws in current methodologies—it fixes them.

Where Wilson critiques the overuse of traditional reaction-time models and flawed predictive analytics, I built a system that solves these issues at their core.

Instead of teaching hitters to react faster, we teach them to react better. Instead of just analyzing what went wrong, we actively prevent the mistake before it happens.

By eliminating timing inefficiencies in real time, my approach ensures that optimal decision-making becomes second nature, bridging the gap between theory and performance.

This is why a batter using my system will always have an advantage over one who isn’t.

It’s not just a better way to train. It’s a fundamental shift in how we understand hitting.

Please send questions and comments to:

[email protected]

@XFactorTechn